I'm starting to come around on the idea of just going to 16 and killing off the bowls entirely.

(08-23-2019 05:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 05:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 05:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 10:57 AM)e-parade Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 09:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I would say that there IS evidence that college football is a very popular sport, namely the attendance and TV figures and money that is thrown at college football by media and advertisers.

So to me that means there isn't much evidence that it is in dire need of "getting fans of other sports interested in it", and even if there is, I seriously doubt that changing to a more formal expanded playoff system would do so. Someone who likes soccer, e.g., and not college football, is unlikely to be swayed by that.

As you say, opinions differ.

Sure, there's interest from lots of people. Lots of older people who have been watching the sport forever. And sure, in some regions, younger people are still getting interested because their teams are constantly in the hunt for a national championship.

Outside of that, attendance figures have been declining and are at their lowest point since 1996 overall, and lowest point for many conferences in quite some time:



Only the ACC, AAC, and MAC have increased attendance year over year.

Is it a dire difference? No, but it is declining and 7 of the 8 past years have shown a decline in attendance over the previous year.


Sounds like it could use a boost of new blood in fans to get back to where it was before.


Be smug all you want with that coffee emoji, but it really adds nothing to the conversation other than showing the fact that you for some reason think you're better than everyone and have a more valuable statement to add. Considering you were citing attendance figures in your own reasoning as a good sign when in reality they are declining and have been steadily for years now, you may want to step down off you high horse and at least consider that not everything is perfect as is.

I will keep using the coffee emoji when i feel like it. Relax, it's just an emoji.

As for your argument, yes, attendance has slipped the past few years, but first, it's still very high, and the money has never been better, and second, it's one thing to say attendance has slipped, and then make a claim that a change in playoff formats will attract new fans and bolster it. A whole lot of things could be causing these attendance slips, none of which have anything to do with playoff format and thus wouldn't likely be altered by the adoption of a new system. I mean, let's face it, it's always been the case that the vast majority of college teams go in to a given season with no realistic chance to win the national title, and not because of the system, but just because they aren't nearly good enough. Yet people follow and root for and go to games for their schools anyway. It's always been that way.

So basically, your assertion that a "rigged committee system" is turning off potential fans is just that, an assertion.

I don’t think a rigged system is turning off potential fans per se. It’s more that it’s becoming harder and harder to sell games that aren’t meaningful in the national championship race. Maybe that was always an unlikely issue for regular season games at a place like my alma mater of Illinois, but it’s a much different problem when the game you can’t sell is, say, the Big Ten or Pac-12 Championship Game when the participants aren’t in competition for the playoff.

More importantly, there’s a huge difference between a critical mass of schools being alive for a division championship and, as a result, still alive for the national championship race in an auto-bid world late into the season versus having the vast majority of schools being effectively eliminated from that national title race by the end of September in today’s system (and any other system that doesn’t have auto-bids).

The NFL knows this better than anyone: as great as it is for them to have name brand teams like the Cowboys doing well nationally, they know that there’s no more powerful force for TV ratings than for *your* team (whoever that might be) being mathematically in the hunt for the playoffs as late into the season as possible... because not only do you watch your own team’s games more, but you also watch all other NFL games more. That’s something that college football has been completely lacking for essentially its entire history. That might have been fine when fan bases were simply satisfied in getting to a bowl game, but that’s increasingly not going to suffice in today’s environment. There’s truly a ton of power in being able to say, “If we win the next 3 games and X/Y/Z happens in these other games, then we WILL win our division and we WILL be in the playoff if we win that conference championship game.” Ohio State and Alabama might continue winning as many conference championships as they did before, but the most powerful draw for any fan base is having as many as possibly simply mathematically being in the hunt in November (as opposed to most of college football having no chance by the end of September).

I just don't know. There are so many factors that go in to TV ratings. E.g., even the mighty NFL suffered TV ratings declines for 3 straight years, from 2015 - 2017. This past year, ratings were up 5% over 2017, but many attributed that to rules tweaks that resulted in record league scoring, and also the fluke of a record number of very close games, decided by 3 points or less. The playoff format that keeps a lot of teams in the hunt until late in the season was the same the whole time.

And if there is a serious ratings decline going on in college football, it hasn't shown up where it matters most, the money. Even the most recent signings of conferences, like the B1G, has been for record amounts of money. If we do reach a point where big conferences are seeing pay cuts or disappointing media deals, that very well could be an impetus for trying something radically new on the post-season format. But so far, we haven't seen that.

Yes, it's hard to pinpoint exactly what causes ratings to rise and drop, but there is a very tangible reason why you saw NFL ratings increase last year: Chicago was a playoff team for the first time in years and the "new" Los Angeles market had their two teams make the playoffs. That drove higher local ratings in the 2nd and 3rd largest markets in the country for both their own teams and for other NFL games that didn't involve their own teams.

College football TV revenue might be high, but I'd argue that they're also leaving money on the table (whereas the NFL is maximizing the value of their TV packages). The current CFP system is good at generating 1 or 2 huge games per week that are large ratings draws from a national perspective. The NFL does that extremely well, too. However, what the NFL does significantly better than college football is having interest in those downstream games *outside* of those 1 or 2 huge games per week. If anything, the NFL has shown that their real power is in maximizing the value of the 1 pm ET Fox and CBS packages (where they are mostly games of local interest) as opposed to the marquee Sunday Night Football package on NBC.

It's easy to say that ABC Saturday Night College Football is drawing great ratings, but remember that they're drawing from a pool of 4 conferences for that property. That doesn't do the Big Ten any good if an ACC game is picked for Saturday Night College Football or vice versa. In contrast, if you have several Big Ten games throughout the entire day where multiple teams are still alive for the division championship and, by extension, the national championship under an auto-bid playoff system, then that drives more interest (a) in the the local markets for the teams' participants since those are now games with much higher stakes as part of the national championship race, (b) in those same local markets for other college football games since their *own* teams are still in the national championship race and now need to pay attention to those other games, and (c ) in national markets since every single divisional race now matters for the national championship race (just as every single divisional race matters in the NFL for the playoffs). You can insert the ACC, Pac-12, Big 12 or SEC into that exact same equation, and even the G5 teams if the G5 is provided with one auto-bid slot.

I'm not saying that's a magical panacea that increases ratings by 200%, but there's definitely a cumulative effect when you have just relatively few more people from a lot more fan bases in a lot more markets start having more interest in their own teams' games and then college football games overall. John Ourand from Sports Business Journal just this past week said on a podcast that he spoke to NFL officials and they are extremely bullish on the TV ratings this season because having playoff contending teams in Chicago and LA drives higher ratings in ALL games in those markets (not just Bears, Rams and Chargers games). College football is leaving regular season TV money on the table in that regard (and that doesn't even take into account the additional money generated from more playoff games themselves).

(08-23-2019 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 07:41 PM)esayem Wrote:  I could see Notre Dame accepting a 5-3 or even a 5-1-2 where the “1” was the highest ranked team outside the P5, a G6 if you will. What separates the G5 from Independent teams?

I have another idea I go back and forth on which says if a team loses their CCG they are removed from the playoff picture. This essentially creates a “first round” out of CCGs.

A 5-1-2 where the "1" included Notre Dame is something Notre Dame would jump right on, as it would be far more favorable to them than any other system.

ND could finish ranked, say, #12, and yet still make the playoffs as long as they beat out every other G5.

I daresay that's not likely to happen. Notre Dame is not in any way comparable to a G5. But for the same reason, because a 5-1-2 that does not include ND in the "1" would harm them, that is an unlikely system as well.

The most likely systems IMO are Straight 8, or 5-3. Because those don't overly favor, nor harm, Notre Dame.

nah

(08-23-2019 10:04 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 07:41 PM)esayem Wrote:  I could see Notre Dame accepting a 5-3 or even a 5-1-2 where the “1” was the highest ranked team outside the P5, a G6 if you will. What separates the G5 from Independent teams?

I have another idea I go back and forth on which says if a team loses their CCG they are removed from the playoff picture. This essentially creates a “first round” out of CCGs.

A 5-1-2 where the "1" included Notre Dame is something Notre Dame would jump right on, as it would be far more favorable to them than any other system.

ND could finish ranked, say, #12, and yet still make the playoffs as long as they beat out every other G5.

I daresay that's not likely to happen. Notre Dame is not in any way comparable to a G5. But for the same reason, because a 5-1-2 that does not include ND in the "1" would harm them, that is an unlikely system as well.

The most likely systems IMO are Straight 8, or 5-3. Because those don't overly favor, nor harm, Notre Dame.

nah

Like I've stated, I think a straight forward compromise is simply that all top 8 independents and G5 champs will get priority for the at-large slots over any P5 non-champ in the top 8. This way, ND (or any other independent) or G5 champ that would have otherwise made the playoff in a "straight 8" system would not get shut out. To me, that's a fair compromise in exchange for the P5 getting auto-bids for their champions. Essentially, if you're a P5 at-large candidate, then you had an opportunity to get an auto-bid to get into the playoff and, as a result, you shouldn't be jumping a top 8 team that didn't have any opportunity for an auto-bid.

That also provides further clarity for the field: if you're an independent or G5 champ that's in the top 8, then you're in the playoff and aren't either given an advantage or disadvantage compared to a straight 8 system. In contrast, the P5 get an advantage for their champs in an auto-bid system, so it's equitable that their at-large teams don't get the same benefit.

(If there are somehow 4 independents and G5 champs that are all in the top 8 in a particular season that causes one of those teams to be shut out, then that has meant that the apocalypse has come upon us. I'll take my chances on that one compared to the more problematic issue, at least from the perspective of the powers that be, that a P5 champ doesn't make it in a straight 8 playoff.)

(08-23-2019 08:59 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I'm starting to come around on the idea of just going to 16 and killing off the bowls entirely.

Unfortunately the bowl guys have spent years and years giving away swag to everyone, and free junkets to ADs and coaches, and even more importantly have sold all of them on the idea of giving bowl games to half of FBS. It's the college football version of the 10-and-under kids recreation league where every kid gets a trophy at the end of the season.

Heck, if I was the dictator of the sport I'd go even farther. Going from 4 teams to 8 is a baby step. You want a really fun playoff, then merge FBS and FCS, have 24 autobids and a 64-team tournament. You want David vs. Goliath in college football? Boise State and UCF are too big to be David, just like Villanova in basketball. Give everyone the same number of scholarships, then make Delaware, James Madison, and Montana 13-seeds and let 'em try to knock off Texas or Washington State at a neutral site. Seed North Dakota State a little too low, make them a 10-seed and Michigan a 7-seed, and watch Harbaugh blow a gasket when NDSU runs off 21 unanswered points. You know you'd rather see that then a whole slew of random bowl games.

(08-23-2019 08:52 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 05:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 11:15 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 10:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  So I would bet that if this issue of expansion comes up, ND will lobby for straight 8, not 5-1-2.

Sure, ND would probably lobby for Straight 8. The P5 will push for the autobids - so at least a 5-3 structure, if not 5-1-2.

But, the real point is that playoff expansion, including 5-1-2, is better for Notre Dame than the current top-4 CFP system.

I think the format of the 8-team playoff would be as much a real point to ND as is the move from 4 to 8. There is a real, substantive difference in chances between 5-1-2 and S8. Maybe moreso than the difference between 5-1-2 and the current CFP 4.

At least history shows that - in the five years of the CFP, ND would have made the playoffs twice under S8, but only once under both CFP4 and 5-1-2.

Sure. Notre Dame will lobby for that. But the other 130 teams in FBS would lobby for the autobids. In fact, it's probably a deal-breaker, at least for the P5 champs.

In the Straight 8, the PAC 12 champion would have missed in 2018. It's a small sample, but for a P5 conference to miss out on one of the marquee bowl games in the CFP expansion scenario is unacceptable. And, there have been and likely would continue to be too many close calls for P5 champs who finished near #8/9 borderline.

The top G5 champ would have missed in 2017, 2016, 2015, and 2014.....arguably simply because of the beauty pageant.

Yes, for that reason, while i still think S8 is most likely, I think a 5-3 is much more likely than a 5-1-2. A 5-3 system satisfies the P5 and ND, while 5-1-2 satisfies the P5 and the G5.

And let's face it - Notre Dame is more powerful than the G5, LOL. One reason for that is TV - they don't want to see a top-8 ND team get booted out in favor of a lower-ranked G5 team, as would have happened in 2015 under 5-1-2 but not 5-3.

As for G5 teams missing, remember, it's not just the 'beauty pageant' of the committee that has kept them out. If we'd gone strictly by computers, they would have kept the G5 champ out all of those years too. The top G5 team just isn't often one of the 8 best teams.

(08-23-2019 10:16 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:04 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 07:41 PM)esayem Wrote:  I could see Notre Dame accepting a 5-3 or even a 5-1-2 where the “1” was the highest ranked team outside the P5, a G6 if you will. What separates the G5 from Independent teams?

I have another idea I go back and forth on which says if a team loses their CCG they are removed from the playoff picture. This essentially creates a “first round” out of CCGs.

A 5-1-2 where the "1" included Notre Dame is something Notre Dame would jump right on, as it would be far more favorable to them than any other system.

ND could finish ranked, say, #12, and yet still make the playoffs as long as they beat out every other G5.

I daresay that's not likely to happen. Notre Dame is not in any way comparable to a G5. But for the same reason, because a 5-1-2 that does not include ND in the "1" would harm them, that is an unlikely system as well.

The most likely systems IMO are Straight 8, or 5-3. Because those don't overly favor, nor harm, Notre Dame.

nah

Like I've stated, I think a straight forward compromise is simply that all top 8 independents and G5 champs will get priority for the at-large slots over any P5 non-champ in the top 8. This way, ND (or any other independent) or G5 champ that would have otherwise made the playoff in a "straight 8" system would not get shut out. To me, that's a fair compromise in exchange for the P5 getting auto-bids for their champions. Essentially, if you're a P5 at-large candidate, then you had an opportunity to get an auto-bid to get into the playoff and, as a result, you shouldn't be jumping a top 8 team that didn't have any opportunity for an auto-bid.

That also provides further clarity for the field: if you're an independent or G5 champ that's in the top 8, then you're in the playoff and aren't either given an advantage or disadvantage compared to a straight 8 system. In contrast, the P5 get an advantage for their champs in an auto-bid system, so it's equitable that their at-large teams don't get the same benefit.

(If there are somehow 4 independents and G5 champs that are all in the top 8 in a particular season that causes one of those teams to be shut out, then that has meant that the apocalypse has come upon us. I'll take my chances on that one compared to the more problematic issue, at least from the perspective of the powers that be, that a P5 champ doesn't make it in a straight 8 playoff.)

The problem with this scenario is that IMO it could result in a *really good* P5 team being shut out, which could create legitimacy issues.

E.g., imagine these are the final CFP rankings:

1) Alabama 12-1
2) Clemson 12-1
3) USC 12-1
4) Oklahoma 12-1
5) Ohio State 11-2*
6) Notre Dame 10-2
7) TCU 11-2*
8) Houston 12-1

Where an "*" indicates a P5 champ.

The SEC, ACC, and PAC champs are all outside the top 8, they have 3+ losses and pulled upsets in their CCGs over Alabama, Clemson, and USC.

So in S8 we get .... those 8 teams.

In 5-1-2 we get .... Notre Dame, Oklahoma and USC, the #3, #4, and #6 teams booted out in favor of the three non-ranked P5 champs. That's a big hit to legitimacy, IMO.

In your system, if I understand it correctly, we'd lose #2 Clemson, #3 USC, and #4 Oklahoma, because we'd need to protect #6 ND and #8 Houston while ushering in the three outside-the-eight P5 champs.

Losing #2, #3, and #4 would really hurt the validity of the playoff, IMO.

Is this likely? Of course not. But it's another reason why IMO straight 8 is best. S8 just doesn't give us any screwy scenarios.

(08-23-2019 09:39 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 05:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 05:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 05:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 10:57 AM)e-parade Wrote:  Sure, there's interest from lots of people. Lots of older people who have been watching the sport forever. And sure, in some regions, younger people are still getting interested because their teams are constantly in the hunt for a national championship.

Outside of that, attendance figures have been declining and are at their lowest point since 1996 overall, and lowest point for many conferences in quite some time:



Only the ACC, AAC, and MAC have increased attendance year over year.

Is it a dire difference? No, but it is declining and 7 of the 8 past years have shown a decline in attendance over the previous year.


Sounds like it could use a boost of new blood in fans to get back to where it was before.


Be smug all you want with that coffee emoji, but it really adds nothing to the conversation other than showing the fact that you for some reason think you're better than everyone and have a more valuable statement to add. Considering you were citing attendance figures in your own reasoning as a good sign when in reality they are declining and have been steadily for years now, you may want to step down off you high horse and at least consider that not everything is perfect as is.

I will keep using the coffee emoji when i feel like it. Relax, it's just an emoji.

As for your argument, yes, attendance has slipped the past few years, but first, it's still very high, and the money has never been better, and second, it's one thing to say attendance has slipped, and then make a claim that a change in playoff formats will attract new fans and bolster it. A whole lot of things could be causing these attendance slips, none of which have anything to do with playoff format and thus wouldn't likely be altered by the adoption of a new system. I mean, let's face it, it's always been the case that the vast majority of college teams go in to a given season with no realistic chance to win the national title, and not because of the system, but just because they aren't nearly good enough. Yet people follow and root for and go to games for their schools anyway. It's always been that way.

So basically, your assertion that a "rigged committee system" is turning off potential fans is just that, an assertion.

I don’t think a rigged system is turning off potential fans per se. It’s more that it’s becoming harder and harder to sell games that aren’t meaningful in the national championship race. Maybe that was always an unlikely issue for regular season games at a place like my alma mater of Illinois, but it’s a much different problem when the game you can’t sell is, say, the Big Ten or Pac-12 Championship Game when the participants aren’t in competition for the playoff.

More importantly, there’s a huge difference between a critical mass of schools being alive for a division championship and, as a result, still alive for the national championship race in an auto-bid world late into the season versus having the vast majority of schools being effectively eliminated from that national title race by the end of September in today’s system (and any other system that doesn’t have auto-bids).

The NFL knows this better than anyone: as great as it is for them to have name brand teams like the Cowboys doing well nationally, they know that there’s no more powerful force for TV ratings than for *your* team (whoever that might be) being mathematically in the hunt for the playoffs as late into the season as possible... because not only do you watch your own team’s games more, but you also watch all other NFL games more. That’s something that college football has been completely lacking for essentially its entire history. That might have been fine when fan bases were simply satisfied in getting to a bowl game, but that’s increasingly not going to suffice in today’s environment. There’s truly a ton of power in being able to say, “If we win the next 3 games and X/Y/Z happens in these other games, then we WILL win our division and we WILL be in the playoff if we win that conference championship game.” Ohio State and Alabama might continue winning as many conference championships as they did before, but the most powerful draw for any fan base is having as many as possibly simply mathematically being in the hunt in November (as opposed to most of college football having no chance by the end of September).

I just don't know. There are so many factors that go in to TV ratings. E.g., even the mighty NFL suffered TV ratings declines for 3 straight years, from 2015 - 2017. This past year, ratings were up 5% over 2017, but many attributed that to rules tweaks that resulted in record league scoring, and also the fluke of a record number of very close games, decided by 3 points or less. The playoff format that keeps a lot of teams in the hunt until late in the season was the same the whole time.

And if there is a serious ratings decline going on in college football, it hasn't shown up where it matters most, the money. Even the most recent signings of conferences, like the B1G, has been for record amounts of money. If we do reach a point where big conferences are seeing pay cuts or disappointing media deals, that very well could be an impetus for trying something radically new on the post-season format. But so far, we haven't seen that.

Yes, it's hard to pinpoint exactly what causes ratings to rise and drop, but there is a very tangible reason why you saw NFL ratings increase last year: Chicago was a playoff team for the first time in years and the "new" Los Angeles market had their two teams make the playoffs. That drove higher local ratings in the 2nd and 3rd largest markets in the country for both their own teams and for other NFL games that didn't involve their own teams.

College football TV revenue might be high, but I'd argue that they're also leaving money on the table (whereas the NFL is maximizing the value of their TV packages).

I don't doubt at all that college football will not leave any significant money on the table. Meaning, if 5 years from now, when the CFP is coming to an end and decisions are being made about a successor, ESPN and FOX and CBS and whoever else says "we will give you a very significant raise over the current CFP, but we need an 8-team playoff with auto-bids for the P5 conferences, because we think ratings will go up a lot if a bunch of 5-4 Illinois and Mississippi States and Arizona State teams are still alive for the playoffs in early November because despite their mediocre records they are still technically alive for their conference auto-bids" then I have no doubt the P5 will adopt that kind of system.

But I don't think that likely. A big reason is I think there's a big difference in the nature of NFL and college fandom: NFL teams on the one had represent much bigger populations. The Bears represent Chicago, the Patriots represent New England, the Seahawks the Pacific Northwest, etc. But, the fandom is also less I don't know, fundamental, because fans know that these teams really only represent their owners. In the end, any of them - save I think the Packers - can pull up stakes, the Oakland Raiders can become the Las Vegas Raiders, etc.

In contrast, even big college programs like Alabama and Texas only represent a small slice of fandom. But on the other, the fandom is much more essential, the Alabama Crimson Tide can't leave Tuscaloosa and become the Las Vegas Crimson Tide - or at least nobody has tried that yet. And there are closer ties that bind - someone supports the Tide because they went to Alabama, or their dad or mom did, or they live in a part of Alabama where everyone is a Tide fan and has been for 100 years, it's just a part of the culture.

What that IMO means is a lower ceiling for popularity and support compared to NFL, but a higher floor. College fans are probably more likely to support their programs even during the lean times.

And what *this* means is that interest in college football is probably significantly less manipulable by playoff schemes that keep teams in the hunt longer. In Washington, if the Redskins are 2-6 and obviously out of the playoffs, you can almost feel the air let out of the balloon of support, for that season. The stadium will be half-empty, fans will tune in to other games, etc. At Ohio State, 90,000 are still going to be in the stands, though not 100,000 as if they were 9-1.

A lot of verbiage to say that IMO, I don't think there's a significant pool of people out there who do not currently support a college team, but would be if they are still alive for a playoff at 5-4 than if they aren't at that same record.

But that's just my gut feeling, can't prove it.

(08-23-2019 12:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 09:39 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 05:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 05:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 05:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

I will keep using the coffee emoji when i feel like it. Relax, it's just an emoji.

As for your argument, yes, attendance has slipped the past few years, but first, it's still very high, and the money has never been better, and second, it's one thing to say attendance has slipped, and then make a claim that a change in playoff formats will attract new fans and bolster it. A whole lot of things could be causing these attendance slips, none of which have anything to do with playoff format and thus wouldn't likely be altered by the adoption of a new system. I mean, let's face it, it's always been the case that the vast majority of college teams go in to a given season with no realistic chance to win the national title, and not because of the system, but just because they aren't nearly good enough. Yet people follow and root for and go to games for their schools anyway. It's always been that way.

So basically, your assertion that a "rigged committee system" is turning off potential fans is just that, an assertion.

I don’t think a rigged system is turning off potential fans per se. It’s more that it’s becoming harder and harder to sell games that aren’t meaningful in the national championship race. Maybe that was always an unlikely issue for regular season games at a place like my alma mater of Illinois, but it’s a much different problem when the game you can’t sell is, say, the Big Ten or Pac-12 Championship Game when the participants aren’t in competition for the playoff.

More importantly, there’s a huge difference between a critical mass of schools being alive for a division championship and, as a result, still alive for the national championship race in an auto-bid world late into the season versus having the vast majority of schools being effectively eliminated from that national title race by the end of September in today’s system (and any other system that doesn’t have auto-bids).

The NFL knows this better than anyone: as great as it is for them to have name brand teams like the Cowboys doing well nationally, they know that there’s no more powerful force for TV ratings than for *your* team (whoever that might be) being mathematically in the hunt for the playoffs as late into the season as possible... because not only do you watch your own team’s games more, but you also watch all other NFL games more. That’s something that college football has been completely lacking for essentially its entire history. That might have been fine when fan bases were simply satisfied in getting to a bowl game, but that’s increasingly not going to suffice in today’s environment. There’s truly a ton of power in being able to say, “If we win the next 3 games and X/Y/Z happens in these other games, then we WILL win our division and we WILL be in the playoff if we win that conference championship game.” Ohio State and Alabama might continue winning as many conference championships as they did before, but the most powerful draw for any fan base is having as many as possibly simply mathematically being in the hunt in November (as opposed to most of college football having no chance by the end of September).

I just don't know. There are so many factors that go in to TV ratings. E.g., even the mighty NFL suffered TV ratings declines for 3 straight years, from 2015 - 2017. This past year, ratings were up 5% over 2017, but many attributed that to rules tweaks that resulted in record league scoring, and also the fluke of a record number of very close games, decided by 3 points or less. The playoff format that keeps a lot of teams in the hunt until late in the season was the same the whole time.

And if there is a serious ratings decline going on in college football, it hasn't shown up where it matters most, the money. Even the most recent signings of conferences, like the B1G, has been for record amounts of money. If we do reach a point where big conferences are seeing pay cuts or disappointing media deals, that very well could be an impetus for trying something radically new on the post-season format. But so far, we haven't seen that.

Yes, it's hard to pinpoint exactly what causes ratings to rise and drop, but there is a very tangible reason why you saw NFL ratings increase last year: Chicago was a playoff team for the first time in years and the "new" Los Angeles market had their two teams make the playoffs. That drove higher local ratings in the 2nd and 3rd largest markets in the country for both their own teams and for other NFL games that didn't involve their own teams.

College football TV revenue might be high, but I'd argue that they're also leaving money on the table (whereas the NFL is maximizing the value of their TV packages).

I don't doubt at all that college football will not leave any significant money on the table. Meaning, if 5 years from now, when the CFP is coming to an end and decisions are being made about a successor, ESPN and FOX and CBS and whoever else says "we will give you a very significant raise over the current CFP, but we need an 8-team playoff with auto-bids for the P5 conferences, because we think ratings will go up a lot if a bunch of 5-4 Illinois and Mississippi States and Arizona State teams are still alive for the playoffs in early November because despite their mediocre records they are still technically alive for their conference auto-bids" then I have no doubt the P5 will adopt that kind of system.

But I don't think that likely. A big reason is I think there's a big difference in the nature of NFL and college fandom: NFL teams on the one had represent much bigger populations. The Bears represent Chicago, the Patriots represent New England, the Seahawks the Pacific Northwest, etc. But, the fandom is also less I don't know, fundamental, because fans know that these teams really only represent their owners. In the end, any of them - save I think the Packers - can pull up stakes, the Oakland Raiders can become the Las Vegas Raiders, etc.

In contrast, even big college programs like Alabama and Texas only represent a small slice of fandom. But on the other, the fandom is much more essential, the Alabama Crimson Tide can't leave Tuscaloosa and become the Las Vegas Crimson Tide - or at least nobody has tried that yet. And there are closer ties that bind - someone supports the Tide because they went to Alabama, or their dad or mom did, or they live in a part of Alabama where everyone is a Tide fan and has been for 100 years, it's just a part of the culture.

What that IMO means is a lower ceiling for popularity and support compared to NFL, but a higher floor. College fans are probably more likely to support their programs even during the lean times.

And what *this* means is that interest in college football is probably significantly less manipulable by playoff schemes that keep teams in the hunt longer. In Washington, if the Redskins are 2-6 and obviously out of the playoffs, you can almost feel the air let out of the balloon of support, for that season. The stadium will be half-empty, fans will tune in to other games, etc. At Ohio State, 90,000 are still going to be in the stands, though not 100,000 as if they were 9-1.

A lot of verbiage to say that IMO, I don't think there's a significant pool of people out there who do not currently support a college team, but would be if they are still alive for a playoff at 5-4 than if they aren't at that same record.

But that's just my gut feeling, can't prove it.

Thats all irrelevant to Franks real point. The fact is the overall potential fan base of college football is smaller than the NFL. Everyone knows that. However, what Frank is advocating is a system that engages the largest number of college fan bases as long as possible during the season---enough so that more "buy into" the post season due to interest created during the regular season. I would additionally argue that there is great potential fanbase growth in the underdeveloped G5---where for 2 decades there has been zero possibility of being in the playoff race. That one G5 slot might be a cheap price to pay if it triggers strong growth in the underdeveloped portion of the overall college football audience.

(08-23-2019 12:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:16 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:04 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 07:41 PM)esayem Wrote:  I could see Notre Dame accepting a 5-3 or even a 5-1-2 where the “1” was the highest ranked team outside the P5, a G6 if you will. What separates the G5 from Independent teams?

I have another idea I go back and forth on which says if a team loses their CCG they are removed from the playoff picture. This essentially creates a “first round” out of CCGs.

A 5-1-2 where the "1" included Notre Dame is something Notre Dame would jump right on, as it would be far more favorable to them than any other system.

ND could finish ranked, say, #12, and yet still make the playoffs as long as they beat out every other G5.

I daresay that's not likely to happen. Notre Dame is not in any way comparable to a G5. But for the same reason, because a 5-1-2 that does not include ND in the "1" would harm them, that is an unlikely system as well.

The most likely systems IMO are Straight 8, or 5-3. Because those don't overly favor, nor harm, Notre Dame.

nah

Like I've stated, I think a straight forward compromise is simply that all top 8 independents and G5 champs will get priority for the at-large slots over any P5 non-champ in the top 8. This way, ND (or any other independent) or G5 champ that would have otherwise made the playoff in a "straight 8" system would not get shut out. To me, that's a fair compromise in exchange for the P5 getting auto-bids for their champions. Essentially, if you're a P5 at-large candidate, then you had an opportunity to get an auto-bid to get into the playoff and, as a result, you shouldn't be jumping a top 8 team that didn't have any opportunity for an auto-bid.

That also provides further clarity for the field: if you're an independent or G5 champ that's in the top 8, then you're in the playoff and aren't either given an advantage or disadvantage compared to a straight 8 system. In contrast, the P5 get an advantage for their champs in an auto-bid system, so it's equitable that their at-large teams don't get the same benefit.

(If there are somehow 4 independents and G5 champs that are all in the top 8 in a particular season that causes one of those teams to be shut out, then that has meant that the apocalypse has come upon us. I'll take my chances on that one compared to the more problematic issue, at least from the perspective of the powers that be, that a P5 champ doesn't make it in a straight 8 playoff.)

The problem with this scenario is that IMO it could result in a *really good* P5 team being shut out, which could create legitimacy issues.

E.g., imagine these are the final CFP rankings:

1) Alabama 12-1
2) Clemson 12-1
3) USC 12-1
4) Oklahoma 12-1
5) Ohio State 11-2*
6) Notre Dame 10-2
7) TCU 11-2*
8) Houston 12-1

Where an "*" indicates a P5 champ.

The SEC, ACC, and PAC champs are all outside the top 8, they have 3+ losses and pulled upsets in their CCGs over Alabama, Clemson, and USC.

So in S8 we get .... those 8 teams.

In 5-1-2 we get .... Notre Dame, Oklahoma and USC, the #3, #4, and #6 teams booted out in favor of the three non-ranked P5 champs. That's a big hit to legitimacy, IMO.

In your system, if I understand it correctly, we'd lose #2 Clemson, #3 USC, and #4 Oklahoma, because we'd need to protect #6 ND and #8 Houston while ushering in the three outside-the-eight P5 champs.

Losing #2, #3, and #4 would really hurt the validity of the playoff, IMO.

Is this likely? Of course not. But it's another reason why IMO straight 8 is best. S8 just doesn't give us any screwy scenarios.

Quo—I want you to find me an example between 1992-2018 where 4 out of the 5 P leagues saw an upset in their conference title game. You can’t use a near impossible scenario to justify 5-1-2 being unfair or illegitimate.

(08-23-2019 12:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:16 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:04 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 07:41 PM)esayem Wrote:  I could see Notre Dame accepting a 5-3 or even a 5-1-2 where the “1” was the highest ranked team outside the P5, a G6 if you will. What separates the G5 from Independent teams?

I have another idea I go back and forth on which says if a team loses their CCG they are removed from the playoff picture. This essentially creates a “first round” out of CCGs.

A 5-1-2 where the "1" included Notre Dame is something Notre Dame would jump right on, as it would be far more favorable to them than any other system.

ND could finish ranked, say, #12, and yet still make the playoffs as long as they beat out every other G5.

I daresay that's not likely to happen. Notre Dame is not in any way comparable to a G5. But for the same reason, because a 5-1-2 that does not include ND in the "1" would harm them, that is an unlikely system as well.

The most likely systems IMO are Straight 8, or 5-3. Because those don't overly favor, nor harm, Notre Dame.

nah

Like I've stated, I think a straight forward compromise is simply that all top 8 independents and G5 champs will get priority for the at-large slots over any P5 non-champ in the top 8. This way, ND (or any other independent) or G5 champ that would have otherwise made the playoff in a "straight 8" system would not get shut out. To me, that's a fair compromise in exchange for the P5 getting auto-bids for their champions. Essentially, if you're a P5 at-large candidate, then you had an opportunity to get an auto-bid to get into the playoff and, as a result, you shouldn't be jumping a top 8 team that didn't have any opportunity for an auto-bid.

That also provides further clarity for the field: if you're an independent or G5 champ that's in the top 8, then you're in the playoff and aren't either given an advantage or disadvantage compared to a straight 8 system. In contrast, the P5 get an advantage for their champs in an auto-bid system, so it's equitable that their at-large teams don't get the same benefit.

(If there are somehow 4 independents and G5 champs that are all in the top 8 in a particular season that causes one of those teams to be shut out, then that has meant that the apocalypse has come upon us. I'll take my chances on that one compared to the more problematic issue, at least from the perspective of the powers that be, that a P5 champ doesn't make it in a straight 8 playoff.)

The problem with this scenario is that IMO it could result in a *really good* P5 team being shut out, which could create legitimacy issues.

E.g., imagine these are the final CFP rankings:

1) Alabama 12-1
2) Clemson 12-1
3) USC 12-1
4) Oklahoma 12-1
5) Ohio State 11-2*
6) Notre Dame 10-2
7) TCU 11-2*
8) Houston 12-1

Where an "*" indicates a P5 champ.

The SEC, ACC, and PAC champs are all outside the top 8, they have 3+ losses and pulled upsets in their CCGs over Alabama, Clemson, and USC.

So in S8 we get .... those 8 teams.

In 5-1-2 we get .... Notre Dame, Oklahoma and USC, the #3, #4, and #6 teams booted out in favor of the three non-ranked P5 champs. That's a big hit to legitimacy, IMO.

In your system, if I understand it correctly, we'd lose #2 Clemson, #3 USC, and #4 Oklahoma, because we'd need to protect #6 ND and #8 Houston while ushering in the three outside-the-eight P5 champs.

Losing #2, #3, and #4 would really hurt the validity of the playoff, IMO.

Is this likely? Of course not. But it's another reason why IMO straight 8 is best. S8 just doesn't give us any screwy scenarios.

How in god's name are Alabama, Clemson, USC, and Oklahoma all going to lose their conference championship game and not end up dropping in the rankings there? Ohio State would, at the very least, bump up to 4 if not 3. TCU would jump ahead of ND by virtue of the extra win and a conference championship to go with it. USC losing to a team that had at least 3 losses could likely fall behind TCU as well. I realize it's not the full point of what you're trying to say here, since it would most likely result in the same 8 teams in there, but at leasy try to follow some semblance of reality when describing your scenarios.

A much more likely standings would be:

1) Alabama
2) Clemson
3) Ohio State
4) USC/TCU
5) USC/TCU
6) Oklahoma
7) ND
8) Houston

In that scenario with a 5-1-2, you'd still lose some teams that are really good, but it actually legitimizes the conference championship game. In a straight 8 scenario you make it so those teams don't even need to care about the conference championship game, because they can still lose their conference championship game and still have a guaranteed spot in the playoffs. Literally nothing on the line to play for. You don't make more people want to watch the start of the game by having its results be meaningless from the start.


But also you're describing a scenario that's not ever going to happen to try and make your point stronger here. No way in hell are we ever going to see 4 teams in the P5 go undefeated in the regular season and then have all 4 of them lose in the conference championship. Never going to happen. Especially in the instance where 3 of the P5 conferences all have a 3+ loss team even in the championship game to begin with.

Last year, the SEC Championship game was between two top 5 ranked teams, the year before was between two top 6 ranked teams.

15, 16, and 17 had two top 10 ranked teams against each other in the Big 10 championship game.

15 and 17 had a top 10 match-up in the ACC

14 and 16 had a top ten match-up in the PAC

B12 had a top 10 match-up in 17.


In the years that each of those conference didn't have a top 10 match-up, here are the instances where the team ranked higher lost:

1)

That's the list. In the past 5 seasons there have been exactly 0 upsets in P5 championship games that involved a team ranked in the top 10 losing to a team ranked outside of the top 10. You have to go back to 2011 to find one, where 21st ranked Clemson beat 5th ranked VTech. 2012 would have resulted in an 8-5 Wisconsin team getting in, but they were only in the championship game that year because both Ohio State (12-0) and Penn State were ineligible to play in it. Big 12 you need to go all the way back to 2003 (granted their championship game wasn't around the whole time) to find that kind of upset. The last time it happened in the SEC was 2005, and that was only a 2 loss Georgia team, not a 3 loss team.

Never happened in the PAC. Though in both 17 and 18 they had both teams ranked outside of the top 10 going into it.

So there you have it. The past 5 seasons would have seen 2 teams outside of the top from the P5 make it in because of an auto-bid, and in both cases it was because the PAC had pretty down years. In the past 10 years, only a single year would have had two teams from outside the top 10: the aforementioned 2011 season with Clemson upsetting VTech that also had both BIG teams ranked outside of the top 10 prior to the start. The final standings (prior to bowl games that year) were:

1) LSU (SEC)
2) Alabama
3) OK State (B12)
4) Stanford
5) Oregon (PAC)
6) Arkansas
7) Boise (G5)
8) Kansas State

With Clemson (15) and Wisconsin (10) taking the place of Arkansas (6) and Kansas State (8) to get the P5 Auto-bids in there. Clemson being the only one with 3 losses to make it in.


That's been your worse case scenario to date. The #6 team not making it in, #6 and the 3rd team from the SEC. None of this nonsense about 3 teams in the top 5 not making it in a single season. 0 teams in the top 5 would have missed in the worst case we've seen so far.

(08-23-2019 02:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 12:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:16 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:04 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  A 5-1-2 where the "1" included Notre Dame is something Notre Dame would jump right on, as it would be far more favorable to them than any other system.

ND could finish ranked, say, #12, and yet still make the playoffs as long as they beat out every other G5.

I daresay that's not likely to happen. Notre Dame is not in any way comparable to a G5. But for the same reason, because a 5-1-2 that does not include ND in the "1" would harm them, that is an unlikely system as well.

The most likely systems IMO are Straight 8, or 5-3. Because those don't overly favor, nor harm, Notre Dame.

nah

Like I've stated, I think a straight forward compromise is simply that all top 8 independents and G5 champs will get priority for the at-large slots over any P5 non-champ in the top 8. This way, ND (or any other independent) or G5 champ that would have otherwise made the playoff in a "straight 8" system would not get shut out. To me, that's a fair compromise in exchange for the P5 getting auto-bids for their champions. Essentially, if you're a P5 at-large candidate, then you had an opportunity to get an auto-bid to get into the playoff and, as a result, you shouldn't be jumping a top 8 team that didn't have any opportunity for an auto-bid.

That also provides further clarity for the field: if you're an independent or G5 champ that's in the top 8, then you're in the playoff and aren't either given an advantage or disadvantage compared to a straight 8 system. In contrast, the P5 get an advantage for their champs in an auto-bid system, so it's equitable that their at-large teams don't get the same benefit.

(If there are somehow 4 independents and G5 champs that are all in the top 8 in a particular season that causes one of those teams to be shut out, then that has meant that the apocalypse has come upon us. I'll take my chances on that one compared to the more problematic issue, at least from the perspective of the powers that be, that a P5 champ doesn't make it in a straight 8 playoff.)

The problem with this scenario is that IMO it could result in a *really good* P5 team being shut out, which could create legitimacy issues.

E.g., imagine these are the final CFP rankings:

1) Alabama 12-1
2) Clemson 12-1
3) USC 12-1
4) Oklahoma 12-1
5) Ohio State 11-2*
6) Notre Dame 10-2
7) TCU 11-2*
8) Houston 12-1

Where an "*" indicates a P5 champ.

The SEC, ACC, and PAC champs are all outside the top 8, they have 3+ losses and pulled upsets in their CCGs over Alabama, Clemson, and USC.

So in S8 we get .... those 8 teams.

In 5-1-2 we get .... Notre Dame, Oklahoma and USC, the #3, #4, and #6 teams booted out in favor of the three non-ranked P5 champs. That's a big hit to legitimacy, IMO.

In your system, if I understand it correctly, we'd lose #2 Clemson, #3 USC, and #4 Oklahoma, because we'd need to protect #6 ND and #8 Houston while ushering in the three outside-the-eight P5 champs.

Losing #2, #3, and #4 would really hurt the validity of the playoff, IMO.

Is this likely? Of course not. But it's another reason why IMO straight 8 is best. S8 just doesn't give us any screwy scenarios.

Quo—I want you to find me an example between 1992-2018 where 4 out of the 5 P leagues saw an upset in their conference title game. You can’t use a near impossible scenario to justify 5-1-2 being unfair or illegitimate.

I may have just taken the thunder out of your request by doing something very similar in my post there. Lol.

There needs to be something protecting the P5 champs and top G5 who have a deserving record.

Whether that’s a loss cutoff for an autobid or whether it’s an official criteria to use as a tiebreaker there needs to be something to stop the BS eye test from screwing half the country out. Remember 2006? People argued Michigan Vs Ohio State should be rematched? Oh yeah both lost badly in bowls.

Last year UGA who had lost twice (once by blowout) was being argued over teams who actually won their leagues without an ugly loss. The “eye test” was full of it there too.

It’s not hard to envision giving UGA a third shot before giving UCF a first shot. SOS or no SOS you can’t lose two more times than your competitor for a spot with one by three scores and expect to get in.

(08-23-2019 12:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:16 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:04 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 07:41 PM)esayem Wrote:  I could see Notre Dame accepting a 5-3 or even a 5-1-2 where the “1” was the highest ranked team outside the P5, a G6 if you will. What separates the G5 from Independent teams?

I have another idea I go back and forth on which says if a team loses their CCG they are removed from the playoff picture. This essentially creates a “first round” out of CCGs.

A 5-1-2 where the "1" included Notre Dame is something Notre Dame would jump right on, as it would be far more favorable to them than any other system.

ND could finish ranked, say, #12, and yet still make the playoffs as long as they beat out every other G5.

I daresay that's not likely to happen. Notre Dame is not in any way comparable to a G5. But for the same reason, because a 5-1-2 that does not include ND in the "1" would harm them, that is an unlikely system as well.

The most likely systems IMO are Straight 8, or 5-3. Because those don't overly favor, nor harm, Notre Dame.

nah

Like I've stated, I think a straight forward compromise is simply that all top 8 independents and G5 champs will get priority for the at-large slots over any P5 non-champ in the top 8. This way, ND (or any other independent) or G5 champ that would have otherwise made the playoff in a "straight 8" system would not get shut out. To me, that's a fair compromise in exchange for the P5 getting auto-bids for their champions. Essentially, if you're a P5 at-large candidate, then you had an opportunity to get an auto-bid to get into the playoff and, as a result, you shouldn't be jumping a top 8 team that didn't have any opportunity for an auto-bid.

That also provides further clarity for the field: if you're an independent or G5 champ that's in the top 8, then you're in the playoff and aren't either given an advantage or disadvantage compared to a straight 8 system. In contrast, the P5 get an advantage for their champs in an auto-bid system, so it's equitable that their at-large teams don't get the same benefit.

(If there are somehow 4 independents and G5 champs that are all in the top 8 in a particular season that causes one of those teams to be shut out, then that has meant that the apocalypse has come upon us. I'll take my chances on that one compared to the more problematic issue, at least from the perspective of the powers that be, that a P5 champ doesn't make it in a straight 8 playoff.)

The problem with this scenario is that IMO it could result in a *really good* P5 team being shut out, which could create legitimacy issues.

E.g., imagine these are the final CFP rankings:

1) Alabama 12-1
2) Clemson 12-1
3) USC 12-1
4) Oklahoma 12-1
5) Ohio State 11-2*
6) Notre Dame 10-2
7) TCU 11-2*
8) Houston 12-1

Where an "*" indicates a P5 champ.

The SEC, ACC, and PAC champs are all outside the top 8, they have 3+ losses and pulled upsets in their CCGs over Alabama, Clemson, and USC.

So in S8 we get .... those 8 teams.

In 5-1-2 we get .... Notre Dame, Oklahoma and USC, the #3, #4, and #6 teams booted out in favor of the three non-ranked P5 champs. That's a big hit to legitimacy, IMO.

In your system, if I understand it correctly, we'd lose #2 Clemson, #3 USC, and #4 Oklahoma, because we'd need to protect #6 ND and #8 Houston while ushering in the three outside-the-eight P5 champs.

Losing #2, #3, and #4 would really hurt the validity of the playoff, IMO.

Is this likely? Of course not. But it's another reason why IMO straight 8 is best. S8 just doesn't give us any screwy scenarios.

This is highly unlikely (AKA unprecedented in the history of college football), but you're arguing one extreme end and point of view.

On the flip side, the more critical issue that is relatively rare but very is a P5 conference champ not finishing in the top 8. That happened just this past year to the Pac-12... and THAT is untenable in an 8-team playoff to the powers that be. A P5 conference getting shut out of the top 4 playoff will happen no matter what simply because of math. However, I just can't see how an 8-team playoff ever happens without auto-bids involved. The Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12 have all already seen that a year (or multiple years) where their champ doesn't go to the playoff really, really, REALLY hurts. One day (maybe soon), Clemson will have a bad day or two and the same will happen to the ACC, too. If they all can't stand being shut out now when at least 1 P5 league per year is *guaranteed* to be left out, you can magnify that by 10 times if they're shut out of an 8-team playoff. They simply won't let that happen even if it only happens once every 50 or 100 years in practicality. One time is too many when you're a P5 conference. Getting shut out of the national title didn't bother the P5 leagues under the BCS system (that just set up the 1 vs. 2 matchup) in the same way that it does under this 4-team CFP system. The narrative (whether it's fair or not) is that "your conference just can't compete" and people stop paying to that conference by mid-season (which is essentially what happened to the Pac-12 last year).

Power = guaranteed money and guaranteed access.

I guess it's all circular to me. Regardless of whether one personally believes that a straight 8 playoff is better or worse than an 8-team playoff with P5 auto-bids is almost irrelevant. From my vantage point, the entire reason why the people that matter (the P5 conference commissioners and university president) would push for an 8-team playoff in the first place is that they have P5 auto-bids. The P5 conferences getting left out of the 4-team playoff that want an 8-team playoff certainly aren't going to set up an 8-team playoff where there's *any* chance of them getting shut out (or at least any thought that they would think otherwise stretches any sense of reality in how these leagues have acted in the past). Otherwise, there won't be an 8-team playoff at all and our discussion is moot.

Note that an 8-team playoff means that the first round will effectively either (a) use the current CFP bowls, which is where the P5 get their guaranteed money and access today or (b) entirely devalue or even replace those CFP bowls altogether. The Big Ten and Pac-12 aren't going to each be getting $40 million per year from the Rose Bowl if the Rose Bowl is only getting a Citrus/Alamo Bowl-level matchup going forward. The same thing will apply to the other P5 conferences with their Sugar and Orange Bowl contracts. That guaranteed money and access will need to not only be replaced, but massively exceeded if the P5 were to ever agree to an 8-team playoff. Pretty much the only way that you can guarantee it is to have auto-bids.

I just really think you're vastly underestimating the value of the guaranteed access and revenue for the P5. It's truly their primary source of their power.

I dug up my old retro 5-1-2 thread because I think it’s relevant here. Aside from the disastrous 2012 season where Ohio St was 12-0 but ineligible and the G5 and ACC both yielded lack luster results.

While some folks couldn’t wrap their heads behind counting the AACs ancestor the BE as a G5 I think it’s a solid approximation of where things would have landed.

I’d like to point out who all would have been frozen out of a Straight 8 if the BCS Formula/Playoff Committee would have been determining things:

2004: Big Ten
2005: ACC, G5
2006: ACC, Big 12
2007: G5
2008: ACC
2009: ACC
2010: ACC
2011: ACC
2012: Big Ten*, G5, ACC
2013: G5
2014: G5
2015: G5
2016: G5
2017: G5
2018: PAC 12

Anyone see a problem here? Notice that once you hand things over to 12 Demi-gods suddenly the G5 get frozen out. In 2018 with a playoff spot on the line they probably find a way to have 9 Washington jump 8 UCF.

(08-23-2019 04:47 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d like to point out who all would have been frozen out of a Straight 8 if the BCS Formula/Playoff Committee would have been determining things:

2004: Big Ten
2005: ACC, G5
2006: ACC, Big 12
2007: G5
2008: ACC
2009: ACC
2010: ACC
2011: ACC
2012: Big Ten*, G5, ACC
2013: G5
2014: G5
2015: G5
2016: G5
2017: G5
2018: PAC 12

Anyone see a problem here? Notice that once you hand things over to 12 Demi-gods suddenly the G5 get frozen out. In 2018 with a playoff spot on the line they probably find a way to have 9 Washington jump 8 UCF.

Actually, that's more evidence for why the P5 would want auto-bids. 11 P5 conferences in the last 15 years (including everyone except for the SEC at one point) would have been shut out of a straight 8 playoff. That shows that it's a legitimate danger that the P5 would want a guarantee to counteract.

(08-20-2019 12:46 AM)micahandme Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 05:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 04:14 PM)TTT Wrote:  8-team playoff.

Each Power 5 Champion is an AQ.

The highest ranked G5 Champion is an AQ.

The remaining two at-large seeds go to the highest ranked teams not already in as an AQ.

After the 8 team field is set, they are seeded by the CFB Playoff Committee for match-ups

If this was implemented last year, the 8-team playoff would've consisted of these teams (in no particular order):

Alabama (SEC Champs)
Clemson (ACC Champs)
Oklahoma (B12 Champs)
Ohio State (B10 Champs)
Washington (PAC12 Champs)
UCF (Highest ranked G5 Champion)
Notre Dame (highest ranked team not already in as an AQ)
Georgia (2nd highest ranked team not already in as an AQ - the last team in)

And under this scenario, you would've probably have seen these pods/match-ups:

1. Alabama vs. 8. Washington
4. Ohio State vs. 5. Notre Dame

2. Clemson vs. 7. UCF
3. Oklahoma vs. 6. Georgia

What do you think?

What you’re describing is what a lot of us here refer to as a 5-1-2 playoff and there is a fairly strong contingent that think it would produce the most controversy free, fairest playoff scenario.

I for one am a big fan of this model. NY6 bowls serve as quarter final sites, play the semis 7-10 days later, and the national title the Saturday of Pro Bowl Weekend.

No. One of the worst things for CFB right now is the weird 4 week delay between CCGs and CFP bowls. It just kills all momentum...and in a prime TV spot where the NFL regular season is winding down (but before the playoffs start). Put the quarterfinals midway between Dec 5 and New Year's...right around Dec. 18...and that gives two weeks to hype the Quarters...and then two more weeks to hype the semis. Perfect scenario.

And the 5-1-2 format would keep the controversy going...because those final two spots would become the discussion points. Does a 10-3 SEC team deserve the spot over a 11-2 Big 12 championship game loser? Does a 11-1 Big Ten team (that lost its division tie-breaker) get the last spot or an 11-2 Pac-12 title game loser?

But the "objective" data point ("CCG winners are IN no matter what") would legitimize the sport in a lot of casual fans' eyes.

(08-09-2019 04:26 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  No and no.

None of the Power 5 Conference champs deserve an automatic spot.
Top G5 champ doesn’t deserve a spot either.

Just pick the top 8, regardless of conference affiliation or conference title.

What’s so hard to understand?

What's hard to understand is there is a natural bias towards blue blood programs and P5 programs to be weighted more favorably

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(08-10-2019 08:57 AM)esayem Wrote:  An eight team playoff should include:

The five P5 teams that win their CCG

Three at larges who either
1) Win their CCG
2) Don’t lose a CCG

This means ANY team playing in a CCG has the opportunity to win their way in the playoffs in a sudden death format. Basically making CCG’s a sort of opening round.

Teams that don’t lose a CCG would be Independent teams and teams in the P5 that are nationally in the top 10, but maybe were a runner-up in the division.

I really like this approach

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(08-23-2019 05:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 04:47 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d like to point out who all would have been frozen out of a Straight 8 if the BCS Formula/Playoff Committee would have been determining things:

2004: Big Ten
2005: ACC, G5
2006: ACC, Big 12
2007: G5
2008: ACC
2009: ACC
2010: ACC
2011: ACC
2012: Big Ten*, G5, ACC
2013: G5
2014: G5
2015: G5
2016: G5
2017: G5
2018: PAC 12

Anyone see a problem here? Notice that once you hand things over to 12 Demi-gods suddenly the G5 get frozen out. In 2018 with a playoff spot on the line they probably find a way to have 9 Washington jump 8 UCF.

Actually, that's more evidence for why the P5 would want auto-bids. 11 P5 conferences in the last 15 years (including everyone except for the SEC at one point) would have been shut out of a straight 8 playoff. That shows that it's a legitimate danger that the P5 would want a guarantee to counteract.

Frank, I’m on the side for 5-1-2 with auto-bids