(05-12-2019 01:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  Just started looking at alternatives on an 8 team playoff. Kind of interesting that in 2018, UCF, along with Notre Dame, Georgia, Michigan and P5 champs, Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma and Ohio St. are in with a straight 8. With a 5-0-3, UCF gets displaced by Pac champ Washington. In a 5-1-2, its Michigan who gets displaced by Washington (who was #9).

If there's not a guaranteed G5 spot, then I believe that it's fair to have a rule that all top 8 conference champs and independents (meaning all teams that don't have an opportunity to win a P5 auto-bid) should be in the playoff. Essentially, if you are precluded from winning a P5 auto-bid, then you should be acknowledged over a P5 non-champ if you would have been in the playoff in an 8-team scenario where no one received auto-bids.

(05-13-2019 12:20 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-12-2019 01:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  Just started looking at alternatives on an 8 team playoff. Kind of interesting that in 2018, UCF, along with Notre Dame, Georgia, Michigan and P5 champs, Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma and Ohio St. are in with a straight 8. With a 5-0-3, UCF gets displaced by Pac champ Washington. In a 5-1-2, its Michigan who gets displaced by Washington (who was #9).

If there's not a guaranteed G5 spot, then I believe that it's fair to have a rule that all top 8 conference champs and independents (meaning all teams that don't have an opportunity to win a P5 auto-bid) should be in the playoff. Essentially, if you are precluded from winning a P5 auto-bid, then you should be acknowledged over a P5 non-champ if you would have been in the playoff in an 8-team scenario where no one received auto-bids.

... which would be tantamount to straight 8, because you can't guarantee that and guarantee bids to all the P5 champs, as it is possible that you could have 4 independents and G5 champs in the top 8.

(05-13-2019 12:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 12:20 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-12-2019 01:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  Just started looking at alternatives on an 8 team playoff. Kind of interesting that in 2018, UCF, along with Notre Dame, Georgia, Michigan and P5 champs, Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma and Ohio St. are in with a straight 8. With a 5-0-3, UCF gets displaced by Pac champ Washington. In a 5-1-2, its Michigan who gets displaced by Washington (who was #9).

If there's not a guaranteed G5 spot, then I believe that it's fair to have a rule that all top 8 conference champs and independents (meaning all teams that don't have an opportunity to win a P5 auto-bid) should be in the playoff. Essentially, if you are precluded from winning a P5 auto-bid, then you should be acknowledged over a P5 non-champ if you would have been in the playoff in an 8-team scenario where no one received auto-bids.

... which would be tantamount to straight 8, because you can't guarantee that and guarantee bids to all the P5 champs, as it is possible that you could have 4 independents and G5 champs in the top 8.

I think what Frank meant is that, in a P5 autobid format, indys and G5 champs ranked in the top 8 should be in the playoff ahead of non-champs when choosing the 3 at-large teams. If there were ever more than 3 indys/P5 champs in the top 8, only the 3 highest ranked of those would be selected.

(05-13-2019 01:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 12:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 12:20 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-12-2019 01:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  Just started looking at alternatives on an 8 team playoff. Kind of interesting that in 2018, UCF, along with Notre Dame, Georgia, Michigan and P5 champs, Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma and Ohio St. are in with a straight 8. With a 5-0-3, UCF gets displaced by Pac champ Washington. In a 5-1-2, its Michigan who gets displaced by Washington (who was #9).

If there's not a guaranteed G5 spot, then I believe that it's fair to have a rule that all top 8 conference champs and independents (meaning all teams that don't have an opportunity to win a P5 auto-bid) should be in the playoff. Essentially, if you are precluded from winning a P5 auto-bid, then you should be acknowledged over a P5 non-champ if you would have been in the playoff in an 8-team scenario where no one received auto-bids.

... which would be tantamount to straight 8, because you can't guarantee that and guarantee bids to all the P5 champs, as it is possible that you could have 4 independents and G5 champs in the top 8.

I think what Frank meant is that, in a P5 autobid format, indys and G5 champs ranked in the top 8 should be in the playoff ahead of non-champs when choosing the 3 at-large teams. If there were ever more than 3 indys/P5 champs in the top 8, only the 3 highest ranked of those would be selected.

You could structure it that way, but IMO that would be nonsensical. E.g., what if the top 4 ranked teams were independents/G5 champs. So say an undefeated #4 team in the country would miss the playoffs so that say a 3-loss #12 ranked B1G champ is in?

That would appear farcical and harm the validity of the playoffs.

(05-12-2019 01:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-12-2019 01:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  Just started looking at alternatives on an 8 team playoff. Kind of interesting that in 2018, UCF, along with Notre Dame, Georgia, Michigan and P5 champs, Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma and Ohio St. are in with a straight 8. With a 5-0-3, UCF gets displaced by Pac champ Washington. In a 5-1-2, its Michigan who gets displaced by Washington (who was #9).

The funny thing is, the way this debate over 8-team playoffs is often framed here is S8 on one side and 5-1-2 and 5-0-3 on the other, as if 5-0-3 and 5-1-2 are very similar and both differ significantly from S8. This seems to be because some are kind of fixated on the issue of whether P5 champs get an autobid or not, and that factor does distinguish S8 from 5-0-3 and 5-1-2.

But in terms of practical outcomes, truth is, if history is a guide, it is S8 and 5-0-3 that are extremely similar, with both being markedly different from 5-1-2.

E.g., looking at the 5 years of the CFP and using the top 8 CFP rankings as our guide, S8 and 5-0-3 would have produced the exact same playoff teams 2014 - 2017, the only year they would have differed at all was last year, when as you say Michigan would have gotten in under S8 while Washington would have displaced them under 5-0-3.

Now, the difference between S8/5-0-3 and 5-1-2 are much more significant, because the playoffs produced by 5-1-2 would have been different from that produced by S8 or 5-0-3 in all of the 5 years of the CFP. That's because in all five of those years, 5-1-2 would have mandated inclusion of a G5 team that would displace a P5 team in either S8 or 5-0-3.

So far it’s not going like I expected. I’m trying to look at 1996-2018. About halfway through and straight 8 is friendlier to no-name p5 schools. Arkansas Kansas and Texas tech make it in that format but not in some others

If we are using 2018 as an example, I would prefer the 5-1-2 format that year. If Michigan ends up being the one excluded, I am ok with that because they had already lost to Ohio St and Notre Dame. Is there really a reason they should be playing for the national championship over a conference champ?

(05-13-2019 11:18 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 10:18 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 08:25 AM)esayem Wrote:  C-USA hovered anywhere from 6th-10th down to ~20th after they lost Memphis and Houston. I would put it in the same category as the A10 and Mountain West during that era. All could be extremely top heavy.

All 3 are still mid major conferences either way so sew what is your point.

I consider them Major conferences, one step below Power conferences, but one step above Mid-Major (MAC, Sun Belt, CAA), and two steps above Small (Southland, Big Sky, Patriot, etc.).

Power: PAC, XII, B1G, SEC, ACC
Major: AAC, BE
Mid-Major: Everyone else

The upper crust of mid major is WCC, MWC, MVC, A10. Same principal applies as in lower tier conferences.

(05-13-2019 01:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 01:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 12:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 12:20 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-12-2019 01:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  Just started looking at alternatives on an 8 team playoff. Kind of interesting that in 2018, UCF, along with Notre Dame, Georgia, Michigan and P5 champs, Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma and Ohio St. are in with a straight 8. With a 5-0-3, UCF gets displaced by Pac champ Washington. In a 5-1-2, its Michigan who gets displaced by Washington (who was #9).

If there's not a guaranteed G5 spot, then I believe that it's fair to have a rule that all top 8 conference champs and independents (meaning all teams that don't have an opportunity to win a P5 auto-bid) should be in the playoff. Essentially, if you are precluded from winning a P5 auto-bid, then you should be acknowledged over a P5 non-champ if you would have been in the playoff in an 8-team scenario where no one received auto-bids.

... which would be tantamount to straight 8, because you can't guarantee that and guarantee bids to all the P5 champs, as it is possible that you could have 4 independents and G5 champs in the top 8.

I think what Frank meant is that, in a P5 autobid format, indys and G5 champs ranked in the top 8 should be in the playoff ahead of non-champs when choosing the 3 at-large teams. If there were ever more than 3 indys/P5 champs in the top 8, only the 3 highest ranked of those would be selected.

You could structure it that way, but IMO that would be nonsensical. E.g., what if the top 4 ranked teams were independents/G5 champs. So say an undefeated #4 team in the country would miss the playoffs so that say a 3-loss #12 ranked B1G champ is in?

You're worrying too much about hypotheticals that will never happen, like all the people who say, halfway through a season, "But what if there are 7 undefeated teams at the end of the season?"

At any rate, Frank's idea would lead to the same result as a format that includes the P5 champs plus the three highest ranked teams other than those five. And practically speaking -- i.e., in the real world, and not what one of us would do if we were the all-powerful dictator of college football -- the only possible formats that would be approved by the powers-that-be are either that or the P5 champs plus the two highest ranked at-large teams plus the highest ranked G5 champ.

An 8 team playoff should be 5-1-2 or 0-0-8.

(05-14-2019 12:43 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 11:18 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 10:18 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 08:25 AM)esayem Wrote:  C-USA hovered anywhere from 6th-10th down to ~20th after they lost Memphis and Houston. I would put it in the same category as the A10 and Mountain West during that era. All could be extremely top heavy.

All 3 are still mid major conferences either way so sew what is your point.

I consider them Major conferences, one step below Power conferences, but one step above Mid-Major (MAC, Sun Belt, CAA), and two steps above Small (Southland, Big Sky, Patriot, etc.).

Power: PAC, XII, B1G, SEC, ACC
Major: AAC, BE
Mid-Major: Everyone else

The upper crust of mid major is WCC, MWC, MVC, A10. Same principal applies as in lower tier conferences.

I was referring to ~05 to ~2012.

MVC is not on that level anymore.

(05-14-2019 04:59 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  An 8 team playoff should be 5-1-2 or 0-0-8.

Notre Dame, BYU, and the Independent teams will be included in your “1” if it happens.

(05-14-2019 05:51 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 12:43 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 11:18 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 10:18 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 08:25 AM)esayem Wrote:  C-USA hovered anywhere from 6th-10th down to ~20th after they lost Memphis and Houston. I would put it in the same category as the A10 and Mountain West during that era. All could be extremely top heavy.

All 3 are still mid major conferences either way so sew what is your point.

I consider them Major conferences, one step below Power conferences, but one step above Mid-Major (MAC, Sun Belt, CAA), and two steps above Small (Southland, Big Sky, Patriot, etc.).

Power: PAC, XII, B1G, SEC, ACC
Major: AAC, BE
Mid-Major: Everyone else

The upper crust of mid major is WCC, MWC, MVC, A10. Same principal applies as in lower tier conferences.

I was referring to ~05 to ~2012.

MVC is not on that level anymore.

Yes not really.

(05-14-2019 05:51 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 12:43 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 11:18 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 10:18 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 08:25 AM)esayem Wrote:  C-USA hovered anywhere from 6th-10th down to ~20th after they lost Memphis and Houston. I would put it in the same category as the A10 and Mountain West during that era. All could be extremely top heavy.

All 3 are still mid major conferences either way so sew what is your point.

I consider them Major conferences, one step below Power conferences, but one step above Mid-Major (MAC, Sun Belt, CAA), and two steps above Small (Southland, Big Sky, Patriot, etc.).

Power: PAC, XII, B1G, SEC, ACC
Major: AAC, BE
Mid-Major: Everyone else

The upper crust of mid major is WCC, MWC, MVC, A10. Same principal applies as in lower tier conferences.

I was referring to ~05 to ~2012.

MVC is not on that level anymore.

They've had a couple of down years. So has the A10. The WCC has long been Gonzaga + 1 or 2 others without much at the bottom. MWC has also had a couple of down years. They were doing pretty well from 2005-2012.

When they restructured the Division I governing body in the mid-90s, they put the CUSA and pre-split WAC on the same level as the P5 and BE. Each got 3 votes. BW and MAC got 1.5 for 27 of the 51 total votes. The other conferences got 1. The AAC is basically CUSA 1.0.

(05-13-2019 06:18 PM)goofus Wrote:  If we are using 2018 as an example, I would prefer the 5-1-2 format that year. If Michigan ends up being the one excluded, I am ok with that because they had already lost to Ohio St and Notre Dame. Is there really a reason they should be playing for the national championship over a conference champ?

I'd say it depends on who the conference champ is. If it's 13-0 Clemson, then no, LOL.

But under "straight 8" Michigan would have gotten in over PAC champ Washington, and I think you can make a very easy case for Michigan in over Washington.

Yes, Michigan lost to Notre Dame and Ohio State. But those were two losses on the road vs teams that went collectively 24 - 1 during the regular season and finished at #3 and #6 in the CFP poll.

Washington went 10-3, losing to 8-5 Auburn, 9-4 Oregon, and 7-6 Cal.

I'd say with one fewer loss and against tougher teams, Michigan was more deserving than Washington.

(05-14-2019 01:18 AM)Wedge Wrote:  And practically speaking -- i.e., in the real world, and not what one of us would do if we were the all-powerful dictator of college football -- the only possible formats that would be approved by the powers-that-be are either that or the P5 champs plus the two highest ranked at-large teams plus the highest ranked G5 champ.

Disagree. I think a Straight 8 format for an 8-team playoff has a decent chance of being approved by the P5. It treats all conferences the same, avoids legal problems, is an extension of the CFP approach, and is probably the format preferred by the payers, TV.

None of us knows for sure though, we'll just have to wait and see.

(05-14-2019 07:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 05:51 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 12:43 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 11:18 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 10:18 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  All 3 are still mid major conferences either way so sew what is your point.

I consider them Major conferences, one step below Power conferences, but one step above Mid-Major (MAC, Sun Belt, CAA), and two steps above Small (Southland, Big Sky, Patriot, etc.).

Power: PAC, XII, B1G, SEC, ACC
Major: AAC, BE
Mid-Major: Everyone else

The upper crust of mid major is WCC, MWC, MVC, A10. Same principal applies as in lower tier conferences.

I was referring to ~05 to ~2012.

MVC is not on that level anymore.

They've had a couple of down years. So has the A10. The WCC has long been Gonzaga + 1 or 2 others without much at the bottom. MWC has also had a couple of down years. They were doing pretty well from 2005-2012.

When they restructured the Division I governing body in the mid-90s, they put the CUSA and pre-split WAC on the same level as the P5 and BE. Each got 3 votes. BW and MAC got 1.5 for 27 of the 51 total votes. The other conferences got 1. The AAC is basically CUSA 1.0.

I seem to remember reading that about C-USA and the WAC. They just got screwed out of the Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance.

The monster WAC actually had a tie-in with the Cotton Bowl, albeit briefly. The Cotton had the choice between either the WAC champ or the PAC 10 runner-up to pair with the Big XII runner-up. BYU went one year when they should have made an Alliance appearance.

The 90’s bowl picture is what broke the streak of SEC teams in the Sugar Bowl, Big 8 teams in the Orange, and SWC teams in the Cotton. Of course, the Rose came a little later.

(05-14-2019 10:29 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 07:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 05:51 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 12:43 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-13-2019 11:18 AM)esayem Wrote:  I consider them Major conferences, one step below Power conferences, but one step above Mid-Major (MAC, Sun Belt, CAA), and two steps above Small (Southland, Big Sky, Patriot, etc.).

Power: PAC, XII, B1G, SEC, ACC
Major: AAC, BE
Mid-Major: Everyone else

The upper crust of mid major is WCC, MWC, MVC, A10. Same principal applies as in lower tier conferences.

I was referring to ~05 to ~2012.

MVC is not on that level anymore.

They've had a couple of down years. So has the A10. The WCC has long been Gonzaga + 1 or 2 others without much at the bottom. MWC has also had a couple of down years. They were doing pretty well from 2005-2012.

When they restructured the Division I governing body in the mid-90s, they put the CUSA and pre-split WAC on the same level as the P5 and BE. Each got 3 votes. BW and MAC got 1.5 for 27 of the 51 total votes. The other conferences got 1. The AAC is basically CUSA 1.0.

I seem to remember reading that about C-USA and the WAC. They just got screwed out of the Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance.

The monster WAC actually had a tie-in with the Cotton Bowl, albeit briefly. The Cotton had the choice between either the WAC champ or the PAC 10 runner-up to pair with the Big XII runner-up. BYU went one year when they should have made an Alliance appearance.

The 90’s bowl picture is what broke the streak of SEC teams in the Sugar Bowl, Big 8 teams in the Orange, and SWC teams in the Cotton. Of course, the Rose came a little later.

Texas played Virginia Tech in the Sugar in the last year of the SWC.

Big Ten ADs chirping for College Football Playoff expansion
https://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.co...expansion/

The important part there is the “Big Ten champ” being left out. “Big Ten champ deserves to be in”. Hmmmmm

(05-15-2019 08:31 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  Big Ten ADs chirping for College Football Playoff expansion
https://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.co...expansion/

I don't see any new 'chirping' there beyond what was reported a few months ago.