They should consider expanding the playoffs to 5 teams, with a rule that the 2 lowest rated teams of the 5, that did not win a CCG, must play in the "play-in" game. They must play the week of the Army-Navy game.

For example last year Georgia and Notre Dame would play in the "play-in" game, even though Notre Dame was rated higher than Oklahoma.

If all 5 teams actually won their CCG, then the 2 lowest rated conference champs would play in the play-in game.

(05-16-2019 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

I do think that it's relevant that the chirping is coming from the Big Ten because they have historically been the *least* supportive of changes to the postseason in the past. That specific conference has generally been the biggest hurdle to a playoff system in general, so it's a very big shift (especially when Jim Delany himself is talking about it) for the messaging to move so drastically. The Big Ten has gone from outwardly fighting the 4-team playoff a few years ago, proposing "plus one" systems that didn't have a straight playoff component, and essentially getting dragged kicking and screaming into the current system... to now having its officials openly talk about going to a larger playoff. That's a *big* deal to me. Nothing on the playoff system gets publicly stated by Big Ten ADs without a lot of vetting at the conference level.

(05-16-2019 09:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

I do think that it's relevant that the chirping is coming from the Big Ten because they have historically been the *least* supportive of changes to the postseason in the past. That specific conference has generally been the biggest hurdle to a playoff system in general, so it's a very big shift (especially when Jim Delany himself is talking about it) for the messaging to move so drastically. The Big Ten has gone from outwardly fighting the 4-team playoff a few years ago, proposing "plus one" systems that didn't have a straight playoff component, and essentially getting dragged kicking and screaming into the current system... to now having its officials openly talk about going to a larger playoff. That's a *big* deal to me. Nothing on the playoff system gets publicly stated by Big Ten ADs without a lot of vetting at the conference level.

Agreed.

Big 12 has generally been supportive as well. SEC has not been opposed historically, although Sankey made comments against expansion recently.

(05-16-2019 09:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

I do think that it's relevant that the chirping is coming from the Big Ten because they have historically been the *least* supportive of changes to the postseason in the past. That specific conference has generally been the biggest hurdle to a playoff system in general, so it's a very big shift (especially when Jim Delany himself is talking about it) for the messaging to move so drastically. The Big Ten has gone from outwardly fighting the 4-team playoff a few years ago, proposing "plus one" systems that didn't have a straight playoff component, and essentially getting dragged kicking and screaming into the current system... to now having its officials openly talk about going to a larger playoff. That's a *big* deal to me. Nothing on the playoff system gets publicly stated by Big Ten ADs without a lot of vetting at the conference level.

Don't get me wrong: I do agree that the 'chirping' we got from Delany and Alvarez is important. That's because anything the B1G chimes in on is putatively important, as they, along with the SEC, are one of the two most powerful institutions in college athletics. And Delany and Alvarez are two of the biggest wheels in the B1G, so if they are the ones chirping, that carries great weight.

My point was just that the link that was posted today doesn't seem to contain any *new* chirping, above and beyond the comments we got from Delany and Alvarez a few months ago.

The Michigan AD chirped this week in support of looking into it.

(05-16-2019 11:17 AM)esayem Wrote:  The Michigan AD chirped this week in support of looking into it.

As I've said, the B1G is an extremely powerful force in college athletics. If they want something, there's a good chance they will get it, unless the SEC is equally admantly against it.

The B1G has in fact been "hurt" by the CFP more than any other conference, compared to what we would have under say an expanded 8 team playoff.

E.g., if we look at the last two seasons, and compare the ACC and the B1G, the ACC has had two teams ranked in the top 4, and thus has put two teams in the CFP (Clemson each year). If the playoffs had been 8 teams rather than 4, that would not have changed, as Clemson was the only ACC team ranked in the final top 8 each of the last two years.

In contrast, the B1G had 3 teams in the top 8 in 2017, and 2 in the top 8 this past season, but has had zero teams in the CFP, because none of those teams were top 4. So if we had had an 8-team playoff the past two seasons, even with no autobids for conference champs, the B1G would have had 5 playoff teams in compared to 2 for the ACC.

Heck, if we go back one more year, to 2016, the ACC and B1G both put one team in the playoffs - #2 Clemson, #3 Ohio State. But, whereas once again Clemson was the only ACC team ranked in the top 8, the B1G had *three* other teams ranked in the top 8, and would have gotten 4 teams in an 8-team playoff!

So the last three years, with a 4-team playoff, the ACC has 3 playoff teams and the B1G just 1. Whereas with an 8-team playoff with no auto-bids, the B1G would have had *9* playoff teams to 3 for the ACC.

The B1G has been really good at producing top-8 teams, but not top-4 teams.

(05-16-2019 11:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The B1G has been really good at producing top-8 teams, but not top-4 teams.

Expand it out and see where they didn’t get NY6 games despite being in the eligible territory with all of those top teams yet still outside the cfp.

It’s bittersweet. You’re yucking this up if you dislike the B1G and PAC, who have kept this playoff from happening for as long as they have, and then only wanting this small field at first, but, with the field as small as it is, you invalidate so many teams’ seasons, and if that includes some of the largest schools in FBS, that won’t fly long either.

They have nobody to blame but themselves, but, there’s a teaching moment in this for all.

(05-16-2019 11:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 11:17 AM)esayem Wrote:  The Michigan AD chirped this week in support of looking into it.

As I've said, the B1G is an extremely powerful force in college athletics. If they want something, there's a good chance they will get it, unless the SEC is equally admantly against it.

The B1G has in fact been "hurt" by the CFP more than any other conference, compared to what we would have under say an expanded 8 team playoff.

E.g., if we look at the last two seasons, and compare the ACC and the B1G, the ACC has had two teams ranked in the top 4, and thus has put two teams in the CFP (Clemson each year). If the playoffs had been 8 teams rather than 4, that would not have changed, as Clemson was the only ACC team ranked in the final top 8 each of the last two years.

In contrast, the B1G had 3 teams in the top 8 in 2017, and 2 in the top 8 this past season, but has had zero teams in the CFP, because none of those teams were top 4. So if we had had an 8-team playoff the past two seasons, even with no autobids for conference champs, the B1G would have had 5 playoff teams in compared to 2 for the ACC.

Heck, if we go back one more year, to 2016, the ACC and B1G both put one team in the playoffs - #2 Clemson, #3 Ohio State. But, whereas once again Clemson was the only ACC team ranked in the top 8, the B1G had *three* other teams ranked in the top 8, and would have gotten 4 teams in an 8-team playoff!

So the last three years, with a 4-team playoff, the ACC has 3 playoff teams and the B1G just 1. Whereas with an 8-team playoff with no auto-bids, the B1G would have had *9* playoff teams to 3 for the ACC.

The B1G has been really good at producing top-8 teams, but not top-4 teams.

The SEC also benefits.

2018 - +1 add #5 Georgia (#1 Alabama)
2017 - +1, add #7 Auburn (#3 Georgia, #4 Alabama)

Though, one could argue that the Georgia-Alabama CCG loses luster if both teams are slotted for the CFP, win or lose in the CCG.

I calculated what the playoff would look like from 1996 (founding of the Big 12) to 2018 under four different eight team formats-Straight top 8, 5-1-2, a modified 5-1-2 (pre playoff era giving the Big East the 6th automatic slot-same as 5-1-2 during playoff era) and a 5-0-3.

One of the arguments for a guaranteed spot for a non-P5 champion is to capture a team who might be underrated, particularly an unbeaten team. Interestingly, a number of unbeatens got left out even under a 5-1-2. However, with the movement of TCU and Utah from the MWC and effective dissolution of the Big East, all of those teams would likely get in now under a 5-1-2. Those teams generally got bumped by a Big East champ or TCU or Utah.

A straight 8 left out 7 unbeatens (not counting those on probation). 5-0-3 was the worst, leaving out 9, including some in the top 8. 5-1-2 left out 5 and the modified 5-1-2 left out 8.
Notable teams left out under various scenarios:

2018 UCF#8 5-0-3
2017 UCF#12 8, 5-0-3
2016 WMU#15 8, 5-0-3
2012 Ohio St.#3 Probation
2008 Boise St.#9 8, 5-1-2, 5-1-2M, 5-0-3 behind Utah MWC
Utah#6 5-1-2M lower BE team
2007 Hawaii#10 8, 5-1-2, 5-1-2M, 5-0-3 behind BE
2006 Boise St.#8 5-1-2, 5-1-2M, 5-0-3 behind BE
2004 Boise St.#9 8, 5-1-2, 5-1-2M, 5-0-3 behind Utah MWC
Utah#6 5-1-2M lower BE team
2003 Miami O (1 loss)#11 8, 5-1-2, 5-1-2M, 5-0-3 behind BE
1999 Marshall#11 8, 5-1-2, 5-1-2M, 5-0-3 behind BE
1998 Tulane#10 8, 5-1-2M, 5-0-3 lower BE team

The reason for a guaranteed slot for the P5 becomes clear when looking at a longer period.

The ACC champ would be left out 9! times in the 23 years under a straight 8, including 7 out of 8 years from 2005-2012. The Big 10 champ would be left out 4 times and Pac 12 twice. The Big 12 was twice and SEC once with all of those 3 being due to championship game upsets.
P5 champs and their ranking, left out under straight 8:

2018 Washington 9 Pac 12
2012 Florida St. 12 ACC
2012 Wisconsin >25 Big 10
2011 Clemson 15 ACC
2011 Wisconsin 10 Big 10
2010 Virginia Tech 13 ACC
2009 Georgia Tech 9 ACC
2008 Virginia Tech 19 ACC
2006 Wake Forest 14 ACC
2005 Florida St. 22 ACC
2004 Michigan 13 Big 10
2003 Kansas St. 10 Big 12 upset
2002 Florida St. 14 ACC
2001 Maryland 10 ACC
2001 LSU 13 SEC upset
2000 Purdue 13 Big 10 >15 in BCS, 13 in poll
1999 Stanford 21 Pac 12 >15 in BCS, 21 in poll
1996 Texas 20 Big 12 upset

One oddity, Tennessee and Texas both got bumped in both 2001 and 2003 in moving from a straight 8 to a 5-1-2-for Maryland (ACC champ) and LSU (SEC champ) in 2001 and Miami FL (BE champ) and Kansas St. (B12 champ) in 2003.

I would have expected the no-name schools to be the P5 champs who didn't make the top 8, but these 18 include FSU 3 times, along with Michigan, Texas, LSU, Wisconsin twice, Virginia Tech twice, Clemson and Washington for 12 of the 18.

6 of the 18 were top 12
13 were top 15
The remainder were 19, 20, 21, 22 and unranked.

Schools and number of times in straight 8-49 different schools. 45 are currently P5. Only Boise, BYU, Cincinnati and UCF outside would have made it.

Ohio St. 15
Alabama 11
Oklahoma 11
Florida 9
Florida St. 8
USC 8
Georgia 7
Oregon 7
Michigan 6
Texas 6
Kansas St. 5
LSU 5
Nebraska 5
Stanford 5
Tennessee 5
Wisconsin 5
Auburn 4
Clemson 4
Miami FL 4
Notre Dame 4
Penn St. 4
Virginia Tech 4
Boise St. 3
Michigan St. 3
TCU 3
Arkansas 2
Baylor 2
Colorado 2
Iowa 2
Missouri 2
UCLA 2
Utah 2
Washington 2
Washington St. 2
Arizona 1
Arizona St. 1
BYU 1
California 1
Central Florida 1
Cincinnati 1
Illinois 1
Kansas 1
Louisville 1
Mississippi St. 1
North Carolina 1
Oklahoma St. 1
Oregon St. 1
Texas A&M 1
Texas Tech 1

55 schools make it under a 5-1-2. Interestingly 3 P5s were good enough to make top 8, but not win their conference-Arkansas (twice!), Texas Tech and Kansas. The opposite applies to Purdue, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Syracuse, West Virginia and Maryland. Meanwhile, Tulane, Western Michigan and Houston made it as a 6th conference champ, but were not in top 8. Notre Dame made it under both scenarios, but made it 4 times in a straight 8, but only twice in a 5-1-2.

Ohio St. 15
Alabama 11
Florida St. 11
Oklahoma 11
Florida 8
USC 8
Oregon 6
Virginia Tech 6
Wisconsin 6
Clemson 5
Georgia 5
LSU 5
Michigan 5
Stanford 5
Texas 5
Kansas St. 4
Miami FL 4
Nebraska 4
Penn St. 4
Auburn 3
Boise St. 3
Louisville 3
TCU 3
Tennessee 3
Washington 3
Baylor 2
Central Florida 2
Iowa 2
Michigan St. 2
Notre Dame 2
UCLA 2
Utah 2
West Virginia 2
Arizona 1
Arizona St. 1
BYU 1
California 1
Cincinnati 1
Colorado 1
Georgia Tech 1
Houston 1
Illinois 1
Maryland 1
Mississippi St. 1
Missouri 1
North Carolina 1
Oklahoma St. 1
Oregon St. 1
Purdue 1
Syracuse 1
Texas A&M 1
Tulane 1
Wake Forest 1
Washington St. 1
Western Michigan 1

This is an alphabetical list with straight 8, 5-1-2, 5-1-2 modified and 5-0-3. UConn and Pitt only made it in the modified 5-1-2 where they got in as Big East Champ. 60 schools made it under at least one scenario, 52 of the 65 P5 schools. Boise, BYU, UCF, Cincinnati, Houston, Western Michigan, Tulane and UConn from outside the P5.

Alabama 11 11 11 11 SEC
Arizona 1 1 1 1 Pac 12
Arizona St. 1 1 1 1 Pac 12
Arkansas 2 0 0 1 SEC
Auburn 4 3 3 4 SEC
Baylor 2 2 2 2 Big 12
Boise St. 3 3 2 1 WAC/MWC (2/1, 1/2, 1/1, 1/0)
BYU 1 1 1 1 MWC
California 1 1 1 1 Pac 12
Central Florida 1 2 2 0 American
Cincinnati 1 1 2 1 Big East (now American)
Clemson 4 5 5 5 ACC
Colorado 2 1 1 1 Big 12 (now Pac 12)
Connecticut 0 0 1 0 Big East (now American)
Florida 9 8 8 9 SEC
Florida St. 8 11 11 11 ACC
Georgia 7 5 5 5 SEC
Georgia Tech 0 1 1 1 ACC
Houston 0 1 1 0 American
Illinois 1 1 1 1 Big 10
Iowa 2 2 2 2 Big 10
Kansas 1 0 0 1 Big 12
Kansas St. 5 4 4 4 Big 12
Louisville 1 3 3 1 Big East (now ACC)
LSU 5 5 5 5 SEC
Maryland 0 1 1 1 ACC (now Big 10)
Miami FL 4 4 4 3 Big East (now ACC)
Michigan 6 5 5 6 Big 10
Michigan St. 3 2 2 3 Big 10
Mississippi St. 1 1 1 1 SEC
Missouri 2 1 1 2 Big 12 (now SEC)
Nebraska 5 4 4 4 Big 12 (now Big 10)
North Carolina 1 1 1 1 ACC
Notre Dame 4 2 2 4 Ind.
Ohio St. 15 15 14 15 Big 10
Oklahoma 11 11 11 11 Big 12
Oklahoma St. 1 1 1 1 Big 12
Oregon 7 6 6 6 Pac 12
Oregon St. 1 1 1 1 Pac 12
Penn St. 4 4 3 4 Big 10
Pittsburg 0 0 1 0 Big 10
Purdue 0 1 1 1 Big 10
Stanford 5 5 5 6 Pac 12
Syracuse 0 1 2 0 MWC/Big 12 (2-1)
TCU 3 3 3 3 MWC/Big 12 (2-1)
Tennessee 5 3 3 3 SEC
Texas 6 5 5 6 Big 12
Texas A&M 1 1 1 1 Big 12 (now SEC)
Texas Tech 1 0 0 0 Big 12
Tulane 0 1 0 0 CUSA (now American)
UCLA 2 2 2 2 Pac 12
USC 8 8 8 8 Pac 12
Utah 2 2 0 2 MWC (now Pac 12)
Virginia Tech 4 6 7 6 Big East/ACC (2/2, 2/4, 2/4, 2/4)
Wake Forest 0 1 1 1 ACC
Washington 2 3 3 3 Pac 12
Washington St. 2 1 1 2 Pac 12
West Virginia 0 2 3 0 Big East (now Big 12)
Western Michigan 0 1 1 0 MAC
Wisconsin 5 6 6 7 Big 10

A 5-0-3 included 51 different schools:

Ohio St. 15
Alabama 11
Florida St. 11
Oklahoma 11
Florida 9
USC 8
Wisconsin 7
Michigan 6
Oregon 6
Stanford 6
Texas 6
Virginia Tech 6
Clemson 5
Georgia 5
LSU 5
Auburn 4
Kansas St. 4
Nebraska 4
Notre Dame 4
Penn St. 4
Miami FL 3
Michigan St. 3
TCU 3
Tennessee 3
Washington 3
Baylor 2
Iowa 2
Missouri 2
UCLA 2
Utah 2
Washington St. 2
Arizona 1
Arizona St. 1
Arkansas 1
Boise St. 1
BYU 1
California 1
Cincinnati 1
Colorado 1
Georgia Tech 1
Illinois 1
Kansas 1
Louisville 1
Maryland 1
Mississippi St. 1
North Carolina 1
Oklahoma St. 1
Oregon St. 1
Purdue 1
Texas A&M 1
Wake Forest 1

(05-18-2019 04:17 PM)bullet Wrote:  The reason for a guaranteed slot for the P5 becomes clear when looking at a longer period.

First, I don't think a bunch of P5 champs missing the playoffs is a "reason" to have autobids for P5 champs any more than Notre Dame or UCF or Boise missing the playoffs a bunch of times would be a reason to give them autobids. If you aren't good enough, you don't deserve a playoff spot, whether you are a P5 champ or not.

That said, i disagree with the concept of taking a longer view when that view takes us in to times when the power structure of the conferences and the structure of the playoffs is different from now: I don't think it is a coincidence that (a) once one of the AQ conferences, the Big East, loses its AQ status and (b) the system changes from a two-team playoff to a four-team playoff that © the number of P5 champs that miss under straight 8 goes from very frequent to almost never.

Bottom line is that a "P5" did not exist until 2013, so it makes no sense to talk about P5 conferences missing the playoffs before then.

(05-18-2019 07:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-18-2019 04:17 PM)bullet Wrote:  The reason for a guaranteed slot for the P5 becomes clear when looking at a longer period.

First, I don't think a bunch of P5 champs missing the playoffs is a "reason" to have autobids for P5 champs any more than Notre Dame or UCF or Boise missing the playoffs a bunch of times would be a reason to give them autobids. If you aren't good enough, you don't deserve a playoff spot, whether you are a P5 champ or not.

That said, i disagree with the concept of taking a longer view when that view takes us in to times when the power structure of the conferences and the structure of the playoffs is different from now: I don't think it is a coincidence that (a) once one of the AQ conferences, the Big East, loses its AQ status and (b) the system changes from a two-team playoff to a four-team playoff that © the number of P5 champs that miss under straight 8 goes from very frequent to almost never.

Bottom line is that a "P5" did not exist until 2013, so it makes no sense to talk about P5 conferences missing the playoffs before then.

As demographics shift and the money gap grows what is P5 today won't necessarily be the same in 10 to 15 years. It may shrink again from an AQ6 to P5, to A4 or even less.

(05-18-2019 07:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-18-2019 07:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-18-2019 04:17 PM)bullet Wrote:  The reason for a guaranteed slot for the P5 becomes clear when looking at a longer period.

First, I don't think a bunch of P5 champs missing the playoffs is a "reason" to have autobids for P5 champs any more than Notre Dame or UCF or Boise missing the playoffs a bunch of times would be a reason to give them autobids. If you aren't good enough, you don't deserve a playoff spot, whether you are a P5 champ or not.

That said, i disagree with the concept of taking a longer view when that view takes us in to times when the power structure of the conferences and the structure of the playoffs is different from now: I don't think it is a coincidence that (a) once one of the AQ conferences, the Big East, loses its AQ status and (b) the system changes from a two-team playoff to a four-team playoff that © the number of P5 champs that miss under straight 8 goes from very frequent to almost never.

Bottom line is that a "P5" did not exist until 2013, so it makes no sense to talk about P5 conferences missing the playoffs before then.

As demographics shift and the money gap grows what is P5 today won't necessarily be the same in 10 to 15 years. It may shrink again from an AQ6 to P5, to A4 or even less.

Looking at the long term struggles of the top team in the ACC to make the top 8 is very relevant. It was pretty much the same conference in those days. UL/Pitt/SU for Maryland is not much of a distinction.

What is not meaningful is to look only at 4 or 5 years. It is too small a sample to have any significance. Whereas, 23 years is significant. The Big 12 is the only conference with a significant change. The Pac 12 only has Utah and Colorado added. Big 10 only has Maryland, Rutgers and Nebraska added. SEC only has Missouri and A&M added. ACC is pretty much the same from 2004, although before that as a 9 team conference, it was different. However, its struggles to make the top 8 were AFTER Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College joined, not before. And with the Big 12, only the names have changed, not the results.

Its the G5 that has had significant change-American is mostly old CUSA, CUSA is mostly old Sun Belt, MWC is mostly old WAC, Sun Belt is mostly recent former FCS schools. And programs like TCU and Utah got "promoted."

Slots by conference under each method (5-1-2M is the modified 5-1-2 as described above -Big East got an automatic slot instead of G5).
Note that the ACC benefitted greatly from guaranteed slots. Big 12 and SEC both lost slots. G5, of course, gained.
Conference 8 5-1-2 5-1-2M 5-0-3 #of teams
ACC 15 24 24 24 7
Big 10 36 36 34 39 8
Big 12 38 31 31 34 11
Pac 12 30 29 29 31 10
SEC 44 36 36 39 8
Big East 8 13 19 7 8
American 1 3 3 0 2
MWC 6 7 4 5 4
CUSA 0 1 0 0 1
MAC 0 1 1 0 1
WAC 2 1 1 1 1
Ind. 4 2 2 4 1

184 184 184 184 62
Boise and TCU are counted twice as they would have made it in 2 different conferences.

Now is the list based on current conference (above was conference at the time)
ACC 22 33 36 29 10
Big 10 41 41 39 44 10
Big 12 30 28 29 28 9
Pac 12 34 32 30 34 12
SEC 47 38 38 42 10
Big East 0 0 0 0 0
American 2 5 6 1 5
MWC 3 3 2 1 1
CUSA 0 0 0 0 0
MAC 0 1 1 0 1
WAC 0 0 0 0 0
Ind. 5 3 3 5 2

184 184 184 184 60

(05-19-2019 12:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  What is not meaningful is to look only at 4 or 5 years. It is too small a sample to have any significance. Whereas, 23 years is significant.

Yes, five years is not a long period of time. Unfortunately, that's what we have to go on to make a valid, apples-apples comparison.

Extending to 23 years is more distorting than helfpul, because as I've explained, those additional 18 years were under circumstances that make them non-comparable with the current situation. To think otherwise, you have to believe that P5 champs missing the top 8, which was quite common before 2013 but extremely rare after, is just coincidental with the dissolution of the Big East and the advent of the CFP.

More to the point, I think the CFP era experience will be what the conferences go on when making decisions about the new system when 2024 rolls around. By then, they will have 5 more years of data. But we shall see.