(04-30-2021 09:27 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(04-30-2021 09:25 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-30-2021 08:51 AM)esayem Wrote:  I don’t see it happening. If the Rose Bowl and those conferences want special treatment they can remove themselves from the equation just like they did under the Bowl Alliance/Coalition. Thank you, next.

While I love the Random Asian Guy plan, I think you’re right. The SEC will oppose it—because the Big Ten and PAC 12 want it that way.

The SEC knows their champ is going to get the Sugar Bowl if they are in the top 4. They also don’t want to see anyone else get an easier quarter final opponent than their ranking/seeding would permit them. I can see the the SEC/ACC/Big 12 calling foul of say both the Big Ten and PAC 12 are both having a down year and ranked 8th and 17th, yet the Rose Bowl winner would be entitled to a spot in the semis.

At the same time, if the PAC 12 stays in a slump and their champs remain outside of the top 4, the PAC 12 might only see once in a rare while when their seed just so happens to be opposite the Big Ten champ.

Agree on all of the above

I love the idea but the powers that be are going to likely want a committee to make the matchups versus traditional bowl ties which could yield some funky outcomes

Although if I'm the SEC you're telling me you're OK with forfeiting you're right to play the G5 champ then that may be cool with them

As long as auto bids are given to p5 champs, there will be funky matchups whether the committee makes matchups or bowls select the opponents. For example, 9-4 VT may be in a quarterfinal only because it beat Clemson in the ACC CG. Under the 5-1-2, I think #7 and #8 will be rountinely left out. #6 would be often left out. Techinically, even #3 ND team can get left out if #1 and #2 teams are not conference champs.

(04-29-2021 09:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 08:22 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 06:57 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 12:00 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 08:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  That's my belief. I am not sure TV is going to be willing to pay a *large* amount over and above what is currently being paid for the CFP to repackage matchups they already pretty much get as NY6 bowl games as playoff games.

I've got to say that I don't agree at all. Honestly, every time that we don't think that TV networks won't pay more for sports... they break new records. That's still happening in the middle of this pandemic. The NFL just got a gargantuan raise in its new contracts. Heck, the *NHL* just got a huge raise with nothing really new to offer.

So, there's a lot of reason to be *very* bullish on what an expanded CFP would get. There's simply no comparison between the value of elimination playoff games and secondary exhibition NY6 bowl games. When you're adding multiple rounds of elimination playoff games to the second most watched sport in the country (after the NFL), it would be crazy to think that's not worth a LOT of money.

Once again, the *NHL* (much less the NFL) just signed record-breaking TV contracts. A 12-team CFP would reasonably obtain a monster increase - to think otherwise would be ignoring how much TV networks are paying for lesser properties by comparison.

Stewart Mandel noted that the average G5 school received $1.4 million from the CFP in 2017. Doubling that amount or more isn't chump change and all it takes is simply expanding the playoff that they're not likely to even participate in. That is basically the easiest decision that university presidents can make to raise instant revenue in this environment. (Note that the figures for the P5 schools are MUCH higher, so the incentives are even more for them.)

I mean, I get it if people are personally traditionalists or don't want to see further playoff expansion. However, a 12-team playoff would be worth MASSIVE money compared to the current system. I honestly think people are going to underestimate what it's worth (and then wonder why they didn't expand it years ago).

Frankly, what I would really prefer to see is a contraction to four 18 team power conferences, with each of them staging a four team conference championship tournament. No need to include the lesser conferences, as the addition of 7 schools to the "P" ranks would essentially create a separate subdivision within the FBS that includes every school that has even an outside chance of winning a national championship.

Those CCT's are the first two rounds of a 16 team playoff, culminating in a Final Four beginning with the New Year's bowls and consisting of the four conference champions, with no selection committee needed. Now that playoff would generate the big bucks.

While some would like to see a tournament that includes all FBS champions, like the men's basketball tournament, that's just not practical. The bottom 20 or so hoops conferences are just there so they can tell their grandkids they played against this superstar or that (whether true or not) and they are disposed of quickly at little relative cost in terms of the length of the tournament. That's just not practical in football when a team can't play more than once a week and games are much longer and more physical. Let's just acknowledge that difference and not slavishly try to fit the square peg of football into the round hole of basketball.

I agree that an NCAA Tournament format for football has never been realistic for football. You can have a wide field and multiple games per week for basketball that's simply not possible (or safe) for football.

It is in NAIA, Division III, Division II and FCS.

Now its not realistic that the P5 presidents and ADs will allow it, but a 16 team tournament is feasible.

FCS play like 11 games during the regular season without a CCG. Total number of games is 15 for National Title Game finalists.

(04-30-2021 09:48 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-30-2021 09:27 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(04-30-2021 09:25 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-30-2021 08:51 AM)esayem Wrote:  I don’t see it happening. If the Rose Bowl and those conferences want special treatment they can remove themselves from the equation just like they did under the Bowl Alliance/Coalition. Thank you, next.

While I love the Random Asian Guy plan, I think you’re right. The SEC will oppose it—because the Big Ten and PAC 12 want it that way.

The SEC knows their champ is going to get the Sugar Bowl if they are in the top 4. They also don’t want to see anyone else get an easier quarter final opponent than their ranking/seeding would permit them. I can see the the SEC/ACC/Big 12 calling foul of say both the Big Ten and PAC 12 are both having a down year and ranked 8th and 17th, yet the Rose Bowl winner would be entitled to a spot in the semis.

At the same time, if the PAC 12 stays in a slump and their champs remain outside of the top 4, the PAC 12 might only see once in a rare while when their seed just so happens to be opposite the Big Ten champ.

Agree on all of the above

I love the idea but the powers that be are going to likely want a committee to make the matchups versus traditional bowl ties which could yield some funky outcomes

Although if I'm the SEC you're telling me you're OK with forfeiting you're right to play the G5 champ then that may be cool with them

As long as auto bids are given to p5 champs, there will be funky matchups whether the committee makes matchups or bowls select the opponents. For example, 9-4 VT may be in a quarterfinal only because it beat Clemson in the ACC CG. Under the 5-1-2, I think #7 and #8 will be rountinely left out. #6 would be often left out. Techinically, even #3 ND team can get left out if #1 and #2 teams are not conference champs.

About 2 years ago, I simulated a 5-1-2 back to the beginning of the BCS era I believe (it might have been just to 2005).

6s made the playoff and all but a couple seasons. 7s and 8s were very much on the bubble, but a lot of 7s and a few 8s did make the field.

If I'm the SEC I'm totally cool with Ohio State having to go to Pasadena to play USC while Alabama gets Houston in Louisiana

The Rose Bowl can keep the Pac-12 and Big Ten, but you'd still make superseding rules like "The Top 3 must be placed in different bowls". Maybe flex it a bit in case an at-large from one of these conferences is better situated to make the Rose Bowl pairing comparable to the other three.

It does make me wonder. Will teams be given "seeds" 1-8 rather than keeping a "rank" (which may include ranks outside the Top 8)?? A 1-8 bracket is visually appealing, but if you're throwing #9 and #17 into the mix, maybe it'd make a 1-vs-6 or 5-vs-6 quarterfinal matchup less visually jarring.

An old plan I had gave "seeds" to only the Top 3, semifinals were double-hosted at 2 of the quarterfinal locations. Seeded teams could not be placed in the same quarterfinal and #2 and #3 could not be placed in both double-host quarterfinals. For the semis, the top two seeded teams (if 2+ remained) could not be paired, and teams winning quarterfinals at double-host locations could stay. These rules were then overlaid with the common "traditional" pairings with the Big East (at the time, now the top G5) guaranteed an at-large spot. Finally, pairings each round were governed by (a) avoiding rematches, then (b) highest rank vs. lowest.

(04-30-2021 09:48 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-30-2021 09:27 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(04-30-2021 09:25 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-30-2021 08:51 AM)esayem Wrote:  I don’t see it happening. If the Rose Bowl and those conferences want special treatment they can remove themselves from the equation just like they did under the Bowl Alliance/Coalition. Thank you, next.

While I love the Random Asian Guy plan, I think you’re right. The SEC will oppose it—because the Big Ten and PAC 12 want it that way.

The SEC knows their champ is going to get the Sugar Bowl if they are in the top 4. They also don’t want to see anyone else get an easier quarter final opponent than their ranking/seeding would permit them. I can see the the SEC/ACC/Big 12 calling foul of say both the Big Ten and PAC 12 are both having a down year and ranked 8th and 17th, yet the Rose Bowl winner would be entitled to a spot in the semis.

At the same time, if the PAC 12 stays in a slump and their champs remain outside of the top 4, the PAC 12 might only see once in a rare while when their seed just so happens to be opposite the Big Ten champ.

Agree on all of the above

I love the idea but the powers that be are going to likely want a committee to make the matchups versus traditional bowl ties which could yield some funky outcomes

Although if I'm the SEC you're telling me you're OK with forfeiting you're right to play the G5 champ then that may be cool with them

As long as auto bids are given to p5 champs, there will be funky matchups whether the committee makes matchups or bowls select the opponents. For example, 9-4 VT may be in a quarterfinal only because it beat Clemson in the ACC CG. Under the 5-1-2, I think #7 and #8 will be rountinely left out. #6 would be often left out. Techinically, even #3 ND team can get left out if #1 and #2 teams are not conference champs.

If they arent a conference champ, then they would have to have at least one loss---or they could be an indy team. When's the last time the #1 and #2 teams in the nation were either 1-loss teams that failed to win their conference or were indy teams following the conclusion of championship Saturday? I suspect its never happened and likely never will.

(04-30-2021 01:43 PM)Crayton Wrote:  The Rose Bowl can keep the Pac-12 and Big Ten, but you'd still make superseding rules like "The Top 3 must be placed in different bowls". Maybe flex it a bit in case an at-large from one of these conferences is better situated to make the Rose Bowl pairing comparable to the other three.

It does make me wonder. Will teams be given "seeds" 1-8 rather than keeping a "rank" (which may include ranks outside the Top 8)?? A 1-8 bracket is visually appealing, but if you're throwing #9 and #17 into the mix, maybe it'd make a 1-vs-6 or 5-vs-6 quarterfinal matchup less visually jarring.

An old plan I had gave "seeds" to only the Top 3, semifinals were double-hosted at 2 of the quarterfinal locations. Seeded teams could not be placed in the same quarterfinal and #2 and #3 could not be placed in both double-host quarterfinals. For the semis, the top two seeded teams (if 2+ remained) could not be paired, and teams winning quarterfinals at double-host locations could stay. These rules were then overlaid with the common "traditional" pairings with the Big East (at the time, now the top G5) guaranteed an at-large spot. Finally, pairings each round were governed by (a) avoiding rematches, then (b) highest rank vs. lowest.

Id think a standard #1 vs #8 bracket would be used---but---you could just let the committee seed it using a combination of rank and geography to set the field (kinda like the hybrid system they use in basketball and baseball). So, for a 16 team field---I could see doing a #1 through #8 seeds in the west and in the east. With 8-teams, it would be #1 through #4 seeds in the east and the west.

(04-30-2021 07:31 AM)esayem Wrote:  12-9
1

4-5

3-7

11-8
2

Oh great, another one of these weird PEMDAS things...



USFFan

(04-30-2021 03:37 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(04-30-2021 07:31 AM)esayem Wrote:  12-9
1

4-5

3-7

11-8
2

Oh great, another one of these weird PEMDAS things...



USFFan

Hey man! That’s a lot more simple than most of the stuff I see here!

(04-30-2021 08:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-30-2021 03:37 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(04-30-2021 07:31 AM)esayem Wrote:  12-9
1

4-5

3-7

11-8
2

Oh great, another one of these weird PEMDAS things...



USFFan

Hey man! That’s a lot more simple than most of the stuff I see here!

I think he's alluding to your omission of 6 and 10.

(05-01-2021 12:30 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-30-2021 08:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-30-2021 03:37 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(04-30-2021 07:31 AM)esayem Wrote:  12-8
1

9-5
4

10-6
3

11-7
2

Oh great, another one of these weird PEMDAS things...



USFFan

Hey man! That’s a lot more simple than most of the stuff I see here!

I think he's alluding to your omission of 6 and 10.

Fixed!

Shouldn’t that bracket look like this:

5 vs 12, winner advanced to play 4

8 vs 9, winner advances to play 1

7 vs 10, winner advances to play 2

6 vs 11, winner advances to play 3

(05-01-2021 07:34 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Shouldn’t that bracket look like this:

5 vs 12, winner advanced to play 4

8 vs 9, winner advances to play 1

7 vs 10, winner advances to play 2

6 vs 11, winner advances to play 3

That looks like a 1-16 seeded bracket, but I suppose so. I was trying to make the second round most favorable for the 1-seed.

(05-01-2021 07:44 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 07:34 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Shouldn’t that bracket look like this:

5 vs 12, winner advanced to play 4

8 vs 9, winner advances to play 1

7 vs 10, winner advances to play 2

6 vs 11, winner advances to play 3

That looks like a 1-16 seeded bracket, but I suppose so. I was trying to make the second round most favorable for the 1-seed.

If there were seeds 13-16 included they’d play 1-4 in the first round, but if you seed for 12, 1-4 get first round byes.

Barring no first round upsets, the 1 seed does get the most favorable match up in the quarter finals.

The only way to ensure the 1 gets the most favorable match up would be to reseed after each round.

(05-01-2021 07:34 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Shouldn’t that bracket look like this:

5 vs 12, winner advanced to play 4

8 vs 9, winner advances to play 1

7 vs 10, winner advances to play 2

6 vs 11, winner advances to play 3

Or maybe NFL style, #1 gets lowest remaining seed.

(05-01-2021 07:44 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 07:34 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Shouldn’t that bracket look like this:

5 vs 12, winner advanced to play 4

8 vs 9, winner advances to play 1

7 vs 10, winner advances to play 2

6 vs 11, winner advances to play 3

That looks like a 1-16 seeded bracket, but I suppose so. I was trying to make the second round most favorable for the 1-seed.

Esayem, your format had higher seeds among 9-12 and also among 5-8 playing against more difficult seeds than lower seeds.

(05-01-2021 10:42 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 07:44 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 07:34 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Shouldn’t that bracket look like this:

5 vs 12, winner advanced to play 4

8 vs 9, winner advances to play 1

7 vs 10, winner advances to play 2

6 vs 11, winner advances to play 3

That looks like a 1-16 seeded bracket, but I suppose so. I was trying to make the second round most favorable for the 1-seed.

Esayem, your format had higher seeds among 9-12 and also among 5-8 playing against more difficult seeds than lower seeds.

Ah, but there was an even 4 seed spread for every game. Like I said, I reverse engineered it from the 1-seed’s potential Quarterfinal game. The fifth seed gets the 9 instead of the 12. Well, don’t get the fifth seed, haha.

But point taken. IMO, this is why 16 with ten auto-bids is better. Easier seeding, more equity, more games, more home gates, more money. In the words of Madonna: “more, more, more!!!”

There is too much jumping to conclusions around the structure of the autobids within a 12 team format. Just take a look at what is being said and not implied from The Athletic.

The real takeaway is they see a 12 team model offering the best both worlds; more big money teams in the bracket, more theoretical access for everyone compared to an 8 team model and rewards for the Top 1-4 seeds (first round byes) and seeds 5-8 (hosting a first round game).

Then if the bowls are going to be the Quarterfinal round how many bowls are part of that system? Is it going to be the Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton hosting the quarters every year? Does it make sense to make it an NY8 and rotate bowls hosting the quarterfinals for more media markets and to increase the total package value?

We have access bowls now as part of the NY6 and part of purpose is to provide access to the highest rated G5 champ. Where does that access fit in the overall system in a 12 team playoff format? Does it make sense to add enough bowl games to fit every G5 champ in? ESPN is paying up a lot for individual tie-ins to bowl games.

If bowls like the Citrus, Alamo, Gator ect are only worth 5-10 million as non-CFP bowls they might be worth 25-30 million a year as access bowls with P5 tie-ins. G5 champs could have at-large slots to these games w/o ESPN having to pay up for the them.

A 12 team playoff could lead to a total overhaul of the bowl system as we know it, possibly placing all the bowls under one TV contract to bid. The networks would buy the entire bowl system, take it or leave it. They could still split packages between networks but the grand value would be derived from its totality.

At 12 teams does it make sense for the G5 need to have an autobid to the playoff? There is a chance to get both the AAC champ and the MWC into the playoff at 12 teams. Some of those AAC teams could have a good enough seeding to host a first round game.

Then if the AAC/MWC champs did make the playoff, they would not be taking up a spot in an access bowl which could go to another P5 team. The access bowls if they did include all the G5 champs would be looking at only having to include 3 to 4 in most years.

If the G5 doesn't really need guaranteed access in a 12 team format because its low enough threshold then why does the P5 feel like they need it? To me I think it makes sense to go with a straight 12 and keep the access tie-ins at the bowl level, keeping a hosting rotation in place, If 4 bowls are going to be hosting the quarters every year that would necessitate expanding the bowls in the CFP to at least 8 to provide tie-ins to the P5 if they aren't in the quarterfinals.

I've read that the value of bowls like the Rose Bowl is tied to hosting the semifinals at least every 3 years. Perhaps they could move that up to every other year hosting to squeeze out more value.

With these parameters I'd say the best formula is below:

Straight 12 team playoff (4 byes/4 first round games)
NY8 with P5 tie-ins (add Alamo/Citrus for regional diversity)
G5 with two guaranteed slots in the NY8 (if they make playoff goes to 3rd G5)

Alamo I think would be good because its a quasi-western bowl while convenient for XII and SEC teams. Citrus is good right in Orlando.

If you push beyond a NY8 then you might want to look at bowls like Gator, Vegas, Liberty, Sun ect. Vegas is a good site for a semifinal. The others don't really have an adequate market for hosting a quarterfinal.

Straight 8/12/16 are all probably all a no go. The G5 and the weaker P5s are going to want it set in stone that they have access and will be represented in the field.

(05-01-2021 11:32 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Straight 8/12/16 are all probably all a no go. The G5 and the weaker P5s are going to want it set in stone that they have access and will be represented in the field.

The one thing that I think favors a "straight" system is that it is free of anti-trust or other legal issues. Give the P5 autobids but give one bid for the G5 as a whole, and you are still legally vulnerable.

So I think "straight" still has a pretty good chance.