(12-12-2019 10:56 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 07:47 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  5-1-2 is more likely to push the American to expand west than force Notre Dame’s hand.

The American could take SDSU, Boise State, and Air Force and basically own the playoff spot.

Totally agree. I don't see how this would force Notre Dame hand at all,as long as there are 2 at large spots. However I can see the p5 wanting to keep the g5 spot competitive, profitable (ratings wise) and easy. This basically signals to me that the AACS' end game of p5 access is within reach. It's time for the AAC/Boise, SDSU and one of BYU or Airforce to to come together and claim that spot. That unfortunately would eliminate the other g4s from an auto-bid but it could lead to language that will technically still give them a way into the playoffs at best and a guaranteed good bowl against (most likely a new AAC AAC 3rd or fourth place team as a way to free the original p5s from having to play them). I honestly think ESPN wouldn't have a problem in the world with this financially. Heck after basically letting the AAC keep UCONNs' money it would only cost them about 15 million extra on paper, but once you subtract what they already pay for Boise and SDSU and Byu it would be a no-brainer.

This would be a fundamental change and I believe BYU would seriously consider the AAC expansion. As you point out, the TV money is workable and the AAC would become almost a lock for the annual CFP bid.

If the AAC isn't interested in western expansion, I could see BYU seriously consider a return to the MWC. Not sure who #14 would be, but they might also have a chance to add Gonzaga's basketball and Olympic sports.

(12-12-2019 03:06 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 10:07 PM)TTT Wrote:  No matter how you cut it, should this 5-1-2 format get adopted it puts ALL independent schools at an inherent disadvantage vs schools IN conferences. That's not an opinion. It's a fact. Yes, Notre Dame still controls their destination being independent BUT there's MUCH less wiggle room vs being in a conf, whether they want to admit it or not.

What does "whether they want to admit it or not" have to do with this discussion?

The point is that despite having a harder path, so long as they have an actual path they will stay independent.

"They want to stay independent" is not about thinking that being independent is an easier path, it's that for ND being independent is an objective in it's own right and a very high priority.

3 years in a row finishing 7th or 8th and locked out ... because they need to be top 6 to have strong confidence of making the playoff ... is (1) on the one hand rather unlikely they keep ending up exactly in that narrow window and (2) not going to induce ND to abandon independence.

If that's the actual views of ND's athletic leadership then perhaps this is why ND's football program (as hallowed and historic as it is) will never get to the next level that the Alabama's, Clemson's, and Ohio State's of the world have gotten to today.

I stand by my argument. If ND finishes in the T8 for 2-3 consecutive years under this proposed 5-1-2 format AND gets left out of the CFP each of those years, then I'd wager they'll sing a different tune. If they are STILL stubborn about it then it'll be to the detriment of their program/prospective recruits/coaches etc.

(12-12-2019 11:46 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 10:56 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 07:47 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  5-1-2 is more likely to push the American to expand west than force Notre Dame’s hand.

The American could take SDSU, Boise State, and Air Force and basically own the playoff spot.

Totally agree. I don't see how this would force Notre Dame hand at all,as long as there are 2 at large spots. However I can see the p5 wanting to keep the g5 spot competitive, profitable (ratings wise) and easy. This basically signals to me that the AACS' end game of p5 access is within reach. It's time for the AAC/Boise, SDSU and one of BYU or Airforce to to come together and claim that spot. That unfortunately would eliminate the other g4s from an auto-bid but it could lead to language that will technically still give them a way into the playoffs at best and a guaranteed good bowl against (most likely a new AAC AAC 3rd or fourth place team as a way to free the original p5s from having to play them). I honestly think ESPN wouldn't have a problem in the world with this financially. Heck after basically letting the AAC keep UCONNs' money it would only cost them about 15 million extra on paper, but once you subtract what they already pay for Boise and SDSU and Byu it would be a no-brainer.

This would be a fundamental change and I believe BYU would seriously consider the AAC expansion. As you point out, the TV money is workable and the AAC would become almost a lock for the annual CFP bid.

If the AAC isn't interested in western expansion, I could see BYU seriously consider a return to the MWC. Not sure who #14 would be, but they might also have a chance to add Gonzaga's basketball and Olympic sports.

Oh I think a western expansion is a definite possibility. ESPN allowing the AAC to keep UCONN money and the fact that ESPN has seriously slow rolled the new Byu and Mwc on their new contracts kinda indicates that something behind the scenes was going on. Maybe this has played a role in the AAC CCG wave being granted so easily. Who knows? I also think taking Gonzaga is a no brainer that would strengthen the AAC in basketball while helping to allow for a legitimate western division for not only football but also for Olympic sports.
I mean to be honest with the money ESPN would have to ante up while creating a "g5" auto-bid does anyone really think they would want anyone but the AAC,Boise, Byu or SDSU to get that spot especially considering that the AAC is the only conference outside of the p5 that they have invested any real money into?

Am I the only one that thinks it’s ridiculous to have a team winning multiple bowl games in one season?

LSU: your 2019 Rose, Cotton, and Sugar Bowl champs!!!

(12-12-2019 12:55 PM)esayem Wrote:  Am I the only one that thinks it’s ridiculous to have a team winning multiple bowl games in one season?

LSU: your 2019 Rose, Cotton, and Sugar Bowl champs!!!

They wouldn’t be winning multiple bowls—they’d win a bowl that served as a quarterfinal, then a semi final and National Championship Game.

(12-12-2019 11:37 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 10:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 10:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 10:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 09:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  I'm thinking that if Delany is pondering both 16 team conferences and an 8 team playoff he is envisioning four power conferences with the first round of the playoff including the 8 P4 division winners.

This presupposes a breakaway of the 4 surviving P conferences where each conferences 2 division winners comprise the 8 team playoff. And it also presupposes that the networks pay those conferences significantly more money than their CCG's get right now in order to accomplish their acquiescence in the matter.

IMO, this is the only pathway to the 8 team CFP model because it does not hamper, but enhances the odds that any team makes it in thereby paving the way for the move to 16 without negatively impacting the usual suspects in each existing conference. And because it makes it clear to each conference that they will be involved every year which is the buy in for the less dominant conferences.

I simply don't see the SEC or Big 10 giving up their CCG's unless they know they get two in and the money is better.

Now whether that winds up being 4 champs and 4 at large, or 8 division champs is a different matter.

Pretty much. Or some divisionless conference scheduling model in which the top two teams from each conference get in. Perhaps the top teams from each conference play the second teams from another conference in the first round, so it's possible for a single conference to have two teams in the semifinals.

I would be good with going divisionless and taking the two top teams and I particularly like having each conferences #2 play someone else's #1. I guess the only rub I would have with what the networks are likely to suggest, is that I would prefer seeing those first round games played at the home stadium of the higher ranked school instead of adding a third major travel expense to the fans by utilizing only the bowls. Having the semis and finals in the bowls isn't optimal now, but it is established. Add a third trip to it and the attendance at the quarter finals would be dismal. Put it in a home venue for the higher ranked school and you have a winner. And it affords regional access to some round of the playoffs for college football fans in general.

I agree with all of that. The logic is impeccable.

Don't stroke his ego just because he had a good idea.
1 v. 2 eliminates the possibility of the occasional rematch in a conference championship game, but still places a travel burden on the #2 teams especially if you have a west coast #2 traveling east or vice versa.

(12-12-2019 01:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:37 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 10:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 10:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 10:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  This presupposes a breakaway of the 4 surviving P conferences where each conferences 2 division winners comprise the 8 team playoff. And it also presupposes that the networks pay those conferences significantly more money than their CCG's get right now in order to accomplish their acquiescence in the matter.

IMO, this is the only pathway to the 8 team CFP model because it does not hamper, but enhances the odds that any team makes it in thereby paving the way for the move to 16 without negatively impacting the usual suspects in each existing conference. And because it makes it clear to each conference that they will be involved every year which is the buy in for the less dominant conferences.

I simply don't see the SEC or Big 10 giving up their CCG's unless they know they get two in and the money is better.

Now whether that winds up being 4 champs and 4 at large, or 8 division champs is a different matter.

Pretty much. Or some divisionless conference scheduling model in which the top two teams from each conference get in. Perhaps the top teams from each conference play the second teams from another conference in the first round, so it's possible for a single conference to have two teams in the semifinals.

I would be good with going divisionless and taking the two top teams and I particularly like having each conferences #2 play someone else's #1. I guess the only rub I would have with what the networks are likely to suggest, is that I would prefer seeing those first round games played at the home stadium of the higher ranked school instead of adding a third major travel expense to the fans by utilizing only the bowls. Having the semis and finals in the bowls isn't optimal now, but it is established. Add a third trip to it and the attendance at the quarter finals would be dismal. Put it in a home venue for the higher ranked school and you have a winner. And it affords regional access to some round of the playoffs for college football fans in general.

I agree with all of that. The logic is impeccable.

Don't stroke his ego just because he had a good idea.
1 v. 2 eliminates the possibility of the occasional rematch in a conference championship game, but still places a travel burden on the #2 teams especially if you have a west coast #2 traveling east or vice versa.

Being the first place team in a conference should have its rewards and just about every top flight school has 15,000 that can afford that travel. It's very doable that way. And this way the top seeded schools can reward a loyal fan base of season ticket holders with at least 1 practically guaranteed post season game ticket per season book holder.

(12-12-2019 01:06 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 12:55 PM)esayem Wrote:  Am I the only one that thinks it’s ridiculous to have a team winning multiple bowl games in one season?

LSU: your 2019 Rose, Cotton, and Sugar Bowl champs!!!

They wouldn’t be winning multiple bowls—they’d win a bowl that served as a quarterfinal, then a semi final and National Championship Game.

That’s not what somebody said on the first page of the thread.

Brett McMurphy
@Brett_McMurphy
·
4h
Pac-12 commish Larry Scott said he favors all Power 5 conference schools having to play 10 Power 5 opponents. He thinks that could be a negotiation point when/if
@CFBPlayoff
expands, requiring 10 Power 5 opponents for all Power 5 schools

Brett McMurphy
@Brett_McMurphy
·
4h
Pac-12 commish Larry Scott said “the process has started” behind the scenes regarding discussion among conference commissioners about
@CFBPlayoff
expansion to 8-teams. Still unlikely will happen before current deal expires in 2025-26

(12-11-2019 08:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 05:18 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Ross Dellenger

@RossDellenger
A Power 5 AD in New York this week said a specific 8-team playoff model is circulating around the CFB world that would incorporate bowls, including a bowl-sponsored national championship game.

The model:
- 5 auto bids for P5 champs
- 2 at-large
- 1 Group of 5

This is the model I’ve long advocated as a excellent compromise that could stand unchanged for decades. Not too big. Not too small. Multiple ways to get. Best of all—-it provides a legitimate access window for every team at the start of each year. Basically—for every team—it starts with winning your conference. I like that.

I mean obviously as a fan of an AAC school I'd rather see the AAC get an auto bid, but since that's never happening this is the best you could hope for as a fan of a non-P5 school. It makes your path to get to the playoff far easier at the top G5 schools vs your middle to bottom tier P5 schools. Boise for example would be a legit playoff contender every single year, while NC State (who hasn't won the ACC since the 70's and is in a division with Clemson and Florida State) has virtually no realistic chance.

(12-12-2019 02:34 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 08:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 05:18 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Ross Dellenger

@RossDellenger
A Power 5 AD in New York this week said a specific 8-team playoff model is circulating around the CFB world that would incorporate bowls, including a bowl-sponsored national championship game.

The model:
- 5 auto bids for P5 champs
- 2 at-large
- 1 Group of 5

This is the model I’ve long advocated as a excellent compromise that could stand unchanged for decades. Not too big. Not too small. Multiple ways to get. Best of all—-it provides a legitimate access window for every team at the start of each year. Basically—for every team—it starts with winning your conference. I like that.

I mean obviously as a fan of an AAC school I'd rather see the AAC get an auto bid, but since that's never happening this is the best you could hope for as a fan of a non-P5 school. It makes your path to get to the playoff far easier at the top G5 schools vs your middle to bottom tier P5 schools. Boise for example would be a legit playoff contender every single year, while NC State (who hasn't won the ACC since the 70's and is in a division with Clemson and Florida State) has virtually no realistic chance.

Also with the G5 bid it enhances ESPN’s inventory in those leagues. A championship Saturday with one loss Boise and one loss UCF competing for a bid is more compelling with those higher stakes.

(12-12-2019 05:22 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 05:12 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Big Ten's studied 16, 18, and 20-member models, specific schools

Source?

Nothing new. Just, older for the 'net. Like, 2012-13. Some of the old url's don't work anymore.

Here's something on the "studied schools." The original piece isn't freely available. Back in 2013, Fowler posted something on Delany talking seriously with six schools.

Not the direct quote, but a reference to Gee's comments on "super-conferences" that could be 16-20 members, and that the Big Ten had "opportunities" to push the footprint. I wish I could find the quote from one of the Athletic Directors in the Big Ten (I think it was Michigan State?) who literally said they studied models up to 20 schools. Gee's comments, take them or leave them, but he wasn't the only one who referenced a larger Big Ten.

(12-11-2019 05:55 PM)TTT Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 05:52 PM)ColumbusCard Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 05:36 PM)TTT Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 05:27 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 05:18 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Ross Dellenger

@RossDellenger
A Power 5 AD in New York this week said a specific 8-team playoff model is circulating around the CFB world that would incorporate bowls, including a bowl-sponsored national championship game.

The model:
- 5 auto bids for P5 champs
- 2 at-large
- 1 Group of 5

That should put the end to the ND to the ACC talk(it won't, it should though).

I actually think if they were to adopt this format then it would FORCE Notre Dame to join the ACC. Otherwise, they are at a disadvantage each year. What's tougher for Notre Dame? Winning the ACC or finishing the regular season ranked in the T8? I would think finishing in the T8 would be harder.

An odd statement to make considering the ACC champion has been ranked in the top 8 every year since 2011 non inclusive.

See my above statement. The point is, if they adopt this CFP Format...if you're ND and you don't join a conference, you're at the mercy of the at-large every year! If you join a conference, you have MORE control over your destiny vs staying independent. That's all.

It doesn't move the needle much for Notre Dame. Forget the rankings for minute, and just look at records, considering Notre Dame's built-in SOS.

A 12-0 Notre Dame is a lock for one of the two at-large spots.
An 11-1 Notre Dame is one of several in the discussion for one of the two at-large spots.
A 10-2 Notre Dame is not in the playoff.

I was going to do a simluated retroactive 5-1-2 bracket, but Nerdlinger already did one this August in this thread.

The "last one out" has usually been #7 or #8. In 2012 #4 Oregon would have been out. Notre Dame would have been in the playoff twice (undefeated in 2012, 2018) and the bridesmaid twice--in 2015 and 2005--but those were both two-loss seasons.

Being in a conference would give Notre Dame the chance to snag a cheap playoff bid from a weak ACC, but at the cost of their status as the big-dog king independent. Notre Dame would prefer "straight top 8", but 5-1-2 doesn't force them into a conference.

(12-12-2019 04:20 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 05:55 PM)TTT Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 05:52 PM)ColumbusCard Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 05:36 PM)TTT Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 05:27 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  That should put the end to the ND to the ACC talk(it won't, it should though).

I actually think if they were to adopt this format then it would FORCE Notre Dame to join the ACC. Otherwise, they are at a disadvantage each year. What's tougher for Notre Dame? Winning the ACC or finishing the regular season ranked in the T8? I would think finishing in the T8 would be harder.

An odd statement to make considering the ACC champion has been ranked in the top 8 every year since 2011 non inclusive.

See my above statement. The point is, if they adopt this CFP Format...if you're ND and you don't join a conference, you're at the mercy of the at-large every year! If you join a conference, you have MORE control over your destiny vs staying independent. That's all.

It doesn't move the needle much for Notre Dame. Forget the rankings for minute, and just look at records, considering Notre Dame's built-in SOS.

A 12-0 Notre Dame is a lock for one of the two at-large spots.
An 11-1 Notre Dame is one of several in the discussion for one of the two at-large spots.
A 10-2 Notre Dame is not in the playoff.

I was going to do a simluated retroactive 5-1-2 bracket, but Nerdlinger already did one this August in this thread.

The "last one out" has usually been #7 or #8. In 2012 #4 Oregon would have been out. Notre Dame would have been in the playoff twice (undefeated in 2012, 2018) and the bridesmaid twice--in 2015 and 2005--but those were both two-loss seasons.

Being in a conference would give Notre Dame the chance to snag a cheap playoff bid from a weak ACC, but at the cost of their status as the big-dog king independent. Notre Dame would prefer "straight top 8", but 5-1-2 doesn't force them into a conference.

ND doesn't want to change who they are for what may seem an easier/better shot at the playoffs.

It thinks that it can qualify enough times as an independent.

Looking at the above analysis, it may be right.

Two times (2012, 2018) in the past eight years may be enough for those who run Notre Dame today.

It understands and accepts the 12-0, 11-1 and 10-2 model, as much as anyone.

(12-12-2019 12:27 PM)TTT Wrote:  I stand by my argument. If ND finishes in the T8 for 2-3 consecutive years under this proposed 5-1-2 format AND gets left out of the CFP each of those years, then I'd wager they'll sing a different tune. If they are STILL stubborn about it then it'll be to the detriment of their program/prospective recruits/coaches etc.

I agree with you.

The reason we don't see any pressure on ND to join a conference now is that, contrary to what some believe, the six years of the CFP show that ND's path to the playoffs is not any harder than a P5 team's path is. It's been exactly the same.

However, if under 5-1-2, ND is faced with situations where they are a top-8 team and keep getting shut out of the playoffs because lower-ranked P5 champs or G5 team is getting in, then they might change their tune, because ND has said that the one thing that could get them to surrender independence is if it is clear it is a serious handicap to getting into the playoffs.

This is one reason why I think ND would back a "straight 8" system but not 5-1-2.

5-1-2 requires Notre Dame to be the 1st or 2nd ranked team to be assured a spot.

(12-12-2019 06:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 12:27 PM)TTT Wrote:  I stand by my argument. If ND finishes in the T8 for 2-3 consecutive years under this proposed 5-1-2 format AND gets left out of the CFP each of those years, then I'd wager they'll sing a different tune. If they are STILL stubborn about it then it'll be to the detriment of their program/prospective recruits/coaches etc.

I agree with you.

The reason we don't see any pressure on ND to join a conference now is that, contrary to what some believe, the six years of the CFP show that ND's path to the playoffs is not any harder than a P5 team's path is. It's been exactly the same.

However, if under 5-1-2, ND is faced with situations where they are a top-8 team and keep getting shut out of the playoffs because lower-ranked P5 champs or G5 team is getting in, then they might change their tune, because ND has said that the one thing that could get them to surrender independence is if it is clear it is a serious handicap to getting into the playoffs.

This is one reason why I think ND would back a "straight 8" system but not 5-1-2.

Jack Swarbrick is quoted a couple of times as saying a champs only playoff system would end ND's independence, because that would completely close off any path for ND.

So, I am not sure a "serious handicap" would qualify as a true threat to ND's independence.

As long as there is a path to the playoffs open to ND, I think that they stay indy.

Why isn’t Notre Dame just considered outside of the P5?

They finish with a better rank than the G5 “champ”, and that’s with a much harder schedule.

(12-11-2019 05:47 PM)TTT Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 05:39 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 05:36 PM)TTT Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 05:27 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 05:18 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Ross Dellenger

@RossDellenger
A Power 5 AD in New York this week said a specific 8-team playoff model is circulating around the CFB world that would incorporate bowls, including a bowl-sponsored national championship game.

The model:
- 5 auto bids for P5 champs
- 2 at-large
- 1 Group of 5

That should put the end to the ND to the ACC talk(it won't, it should though).

I actually think if they were to adopt this format then it would FORCE Notre Dame to join the ACC. Otherwise, they are at a disadvantage each year. What's tougher for Notre Dame? Winning the ACC or finishing the regular season ranked in the T8? I would think finishing in the T8 would be harder.

Doesn't matter. Do we have access? If yes, then we're good.

Correct me if I'm wrong but yes, it would absolutely matter.

Under this proposed format, if Notre Dame joins the ACC and wins the conference then it doesn't matter where they finish in the rankings...they are in the CFP regardless.

If Notre Dame stays independent and finishes ranked in the T8, that doesn't guarantee they are in the CFP.

If this CFP Format was adopted, the first thing I would do (if I was ND) was join a conference STAT!

All true, but that is not their priority. They want to be viewed as a national program, not regional.

(12-11-2019 07:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 05:27 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 05:18 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Ross Dellenger

@RossDellenger
A Power 5 AD in New York this week said a specific 8-team playoff model is circulating around the CFB world that would incorporate bowls, including a bowl-sponsored national championship game.

The model:
- 5 auto bids for P5 champs
- 2 at-large
- 1 Group of 5

so pretty much the obvious model that everyone has been clamoring for.

I was about to say, it's not rocket science.
The hard details are --when do you play quarterfinals? before semifinal bowls? in the bowls, and extend the season more?

They won't do it logically (home sites mid-December). It will be NYD. So the hard details are when and where do you play the semi-finals.