(05-03-2021 12:20 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 10:39 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 02:48 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 11:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

If we were talking 8 vs. 12 there would be more pressure to have autobids.

But at 12 if you can't make the cut for that....simply you're team isn't that good.

Here’s the thing: it doesn’t matter.

I’ve said it all along: expansion talk is entirely about 100% guaranteed P5 auto-bids. Period. Any “straight ranking” system points to just keeping the current top 4 system.

It’s not about whether a P5 champ outside of the top 12 is deserving enough.

It’s not about whether being one of the “top 6 conference champs” or “top 7 conference champs” is good enough.

99% of the time isn’t good enough. The fact that the P5 didn’t ask for this on a top 4 playoff where you can’t have auto-bids anyway is absolutely irrelevant. If you have a playoff large enough to accommodate all P5 champs, then they’re getting those auto-bids. They’re not expanding the playoff to leave things up to chance in a subject committee room yet again.

Last year’s Oregon team as a lower-ranked Pac-12 champ is a perfect example. That’s *exactly* why the P5 will need auto-bids in a playoff expansion. That’s the whole point of auto-bid protection - they don’t need the protection when the champ is already in the top 4/8/12, but when it’s outside of it. That’s a *feature* to the P5 instead of a bug.

Now, I get that some fans might not like this or want this or believe that it’s fair. I’m just saying that this is the motivation: guarantees, guarantees, guarantees. That’s why the Super League was proposed in European soccer - a 99% chance of the top level wasn’t good enough even for the richest professional sports teams in the entire world. That extra 1% guarantee is what it’s all about for those in power. Downside protection in a bad year is always worth more than shooting the moon in a great year on the upside.

But the protection the autobid is to afford in a 12 team system is the right to appear on the road against the 5th ranked CFP team in December.

Its a totally different argument for autobids in a 8 team format.

1) The bar of Top 8 is significantly higher than Top 12. There is real concern of getting left out of 8 if you're the PAC or the AAC.

2) The autobid guarantees a spot for you're team in a NYD bowl game. Champ finishes 15th and they get a nice reward of a NYD bowl.

Its all about risk vs. reward. In a 12 team format risk to make the playoff is down with only a Top 12 ranking required. Reward is also down because as the 12th team you'll have to play a mid December game on the road.

If the decision was to go out to 16 with the round of 16 played in the bowl games then yes then the 99% to 100% argument becomes more sensible since inclusion would in that case be a reward.

5-1-6 format doesn't make sense. The G5 under the current CFP arrangement have a deal where 1 and only 1 G5 champion will receive a berth to a NYD bowl. At the time there was a question as to how good the G5 would be with all the realignment etc. so they were only deemed worthy of one slot. That slot though belongs to the access bowls, it doesn't belong to the playoff.

Why would the G5 agree to limit themselves to one guaranteed but only one playoff team? What if you have a year where the AAC, MWC and SBC all have Top 12 champions? Only the highest rated of the 3 gets in the 12 team field?

The 6 piece makes no sense either because its stated in a way that P5 will get 11 teams in each year. It is whomever is in the Top 12 of the rankings. That can be BYU, Army, ND, Liberty ect.

P5 autobids are in direct conflict with autobids for the NYD games. As it stands the SEC, XII, BIG, ACC, PAC commit their champions to NYD games and if they have a champ in the Top 4 they then send #2 to an NYD bowl. If the playoff had autobids that means the Rose becomes B1G #2 vs. PAC #2 officially but more like B1G #4 vs. PAC #3 in reality. The entire system collapses into itself because those big payouts for the Rose, Sugar etc. are based on having the champs under contract.

Having the existence of the dual bowl/playoff system is a different dynamic than what you have in European soccer because the P5 payouts are tied to individual bowl arrangements not the playoff system but its the playoff system which dictates the post season format. A straight 12 keeps the bowls at their maximum value.

In 5-1-6, the G5 can still snag at large bids (there’s 6 after all) but they are going to get a minimum of 1 due to the autobid.

5-1-6 is pretty sensible and pragmatic. I think it makes a lot of folks happy and should prove profitable.

The 4 bowls who are semi final sites are going to be fine. They are getting a team in the top 4, and more times than not, it’ll be from a conference that had traditional ties to that bowl.

A new read from Sports Illustrated on the topic. Five of the 11 committee want to expand, three more open to it. The holdup will be in how they go about it. They need all 11 to agree to expansion.

https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2021/05/...ssion=true

(05-03-2021 08:41 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  A new read from Sports Illustrated on the topic. Five of the 11 committee want to expand, three more open to it. The holdup will be in how they go about it. They need all 11 to agree to expansion.

That's a tough standard to meet. And its telling that this has been going on for 27 months now. These are like trade negotiations, LOL.

(05-03-2021 08:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 08:41 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  A new read from Sports Illustrated on the topic. Five of the 11 committee want to expand, three more open to it. The holdup will be in how they go about it. They need all 11 to agree to expansion.

That's a tough standard to meet. And its telling that this has been going on for 27 months now. These are like trade negotiations, LOL.

Agreed. If it were 75-80% of the members I’d say it is a lock but it is tough to get 11 people to unanimously agree to anything.

(05-03-2021 08:41 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  A new read from Sports Illustrated on the topic. Five of the 11 committee want to expand, three more open to it. The holdup will be in how they go about it. They need all 11 to agree to expansion.

https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2021/05/...ssion=true

Ugh! That article is now down for some reason.

From the Twitter feed, this does point to what I noted earlier: that CFP press release didn't come out of the blue. The powers that be have been looking at this for the past 27 months.

I'm not surprised that the difficulty will be in the details in how an expanded playoff will be implemented. My guess is that the 3 holdouts that are currently withholding support aren't opposed to a playoff in concept, but aren't going to state that they will vote for a playoff unless they get the system that *they* want.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if those 3 current holdouts are the SEC, Big Ten and Pac-12. The SEC is going to want to maximize their power, while the Big Ten and Pac-12 are the two leagues that need assurances that their Rose Bowl relationship won't effectively be neutralized. (The other P5 leagues just see bowls and neutral sites as interchangeable, but the Rose Bowl specifically has an entirely different value.) None of those leagues are going to support a playoff in general - they all need a *specific* playoff scenario before they commit to it one way or the other.

OK - I can see the article now.

I guess I'll need to retract my prior post regarding the Pac-12: it looks like they're openly in favor of playoff expansion.

My overall impression from the article: playoff expansion is coming, but the fight will be about the details.

Other impressions from reading that report:

(1) P5 auto-bids and a 1 reserved spot for the top G5 champ seems to have wide support, even from one G5 commissioner. This goes back to how I don't think an expanded playoff happens without those P5 auto-bids in place (with the top G5 champ being included as a compromise).

(2) As much as we've been talking about a 12-team playoff lately, it looks like an 8-team playoff is the closest to a consensus. Some might like 6 and some like 12, but 8 seems to be the format that most can ultimately live with. (Personally, I think it's the easiest to implement, too. A 12-team playoff means adding 2 rounds to the current system as opposed to one, which bumps up into the practical scheduling constraints of the calendar.)

(3) Further to that point, I can't see how a 6-team playoff is reasonably possible with Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick as a part of the working group on playoff expansion. He's certainly not voting for a 6-team playoff with P5 auto-bids and the top G5 champ that doesn't leave any at-large spots (either shutting ND out from the playoff and/or forcing them into a conference full-time). This shows how much power ND has: with unanimous consent required, ND *alone* can veto any playoff system.

(4) On-campus games for the top seeds in the first round seem to be really important to at least the working group (at least much more than I had anticipated). Of course, the working group didn't include either the Big Ten or Pac-12, which are the two conferences with the most valuable bowl relationship with the Rose Bowl. I'd reserve judgment on that one until we know where the Big Ten/Pac-12/Rose Bowl alliance stands on the playoff format.

(5) Regular season length isn't getting impacted. The current Week 0 might become the new Week 1 for everyone and conference championship games might end up being played on Thanksgiving weekend, but reducing the number of regular season games appears to be a non-starter.

(05-03-2021 11:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Other impressions from reading that report:

(1) P5 auto-bids and a 1 reserved spot for the top G5 champ seems to have wide support, even from one G5 commissioner. This goes back to how I don't think an expanded playoff happens without those P5 auto-bids in place (with the top G5 champ being included as a compromise).

(2) As much as we've been talking about a 12-team playoff lately, it looks like an 8-team playoff is the closest to a consensus. Some might like 6 and some like 12, but 8 seems to be the format that most can ultimately live with. (Personally, I think it's the easiest to implement, too. A 12-team playoff means adding 2 rounds to the current system as opposed to one, which bumps up into the practical scheduling constraints of the calendar.)

(3) Further to that point, I can't see how a 6-team playoff is reasonably possible with Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick as a part of the working group on playoff expansion. He's certainly not voting for a 6-team playoff with P5 auto-bids and the top G5 champ that doesn't leave any at-large spots (either shutting ND out from the playoff and/or forcing them into a conference full-time). This shows how much power ND has: with unanimous consent required, ND *alone* can veto any playoff system.

(4) On-campus games for the top seeds in the first round seem to be really important to at least the working group (at least much more than I had anticipated). Of course, the working group didn't include either the Big Ten or Pac-12, which are the two conferences with the most valuable bowl relationship with the Rose Bowl. I'd reserve judgment on that one until we know where the Big Ten/Pac-12/Rose Bowl alliance stands on the playoff format.

(5) Regular season length isn't getting impacted. The current Week 0 might become the new Week 1 for everyone and conference championship games might end up being played on Thanksgiving weekend, but reducing the number of regular season games appears to be a non-starter.

Really good point that I have not seen mentioned anywhere else. With a 6-team playoff--you automatically either lose the support of the group that that want P5 autobids, or the group that wants a G5 auto-bid, or the group that wants a wild card path for the Indys (Notre Dame being key here). You simply cant satisfy all 3 with a 6 team playoff. With 6---your going to lose the support of somebody within the group. Eight looks like the first number that can satisfy the key desires of all 3 interest groups within the panel.

I’ve said this before and I will say it again. The 5-1-2 is still alive because the G5 don’t have an incentive to back the 12 team model. They know too well that there will be only one G5 representative in the playoff whether it’s 5-1-2 or 5-1-6. And under the 5-1-6, the G5 team will not get a bye. Why would they support the 12 team model? The ACC won’t see much benefit either and the article states “New ACC commissioner Jim Phillips says it is “premature” to assume the playoff will expand.”

ND and the SEC will prefer the 5-1-6 over the 5-1-2 in my opinion. It’ll be interesting to watch how this unfolds.

So many details to work out, but here is a thought: if the 5-1-2 model gets approved, and the G5 gets a guaranteed access spot, does the AAC still fight to be disassociated from the G5?

(05-03-2021 01:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I’ve said this before and I will say it again. The 5-1-2 is still alive because the G5 don’t have an incentive to back the 12 team model. They know too well that there will be only one G5 representative in the playoff whether it’s 5-1-2 or 5-1-6. And under the 5-1-6, the G5 team will not get a bye. Why would they support the 12 team model? The ACC won’t see much benefit either and the article states “New ACC commissioner Jim Phillips says it is “premature” to assume the playoff will expand.”

ND and the SEC will prefer the 5-1-6 over the 5-1-2 in my opinion. It’ll be interesting to watch how this unfolds.

I've an$wered thi$ before and I will an$wer it again. The rea$on they will end up moving to a 5-1-6 model i$ that it will generate con$iderably more money by having 4 more game$ to $ell to the network($) that broadca$t them. The majority of that money will obviou$ly go to the conference$ and team$ that participate in them, but a portion will be pa$$ed along to everybody el$e, re$ulting in a higher overall payout. Plu$, having a guaranteed repre$entative i$ far better than the G5 ha$ managed to do throughout the entirety of the CFP to date, $o having to play in the extra game i$ $TILL better than being $y$tematically excluded every year.

U$FFan

(05-03-2021 01:19 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  So many details to work out, but here is a thought: if the 5-1-2 model gets approved, and the G5 gets a guaranteed access spot, does the AAC still fight to be disassociated from the G5?

Of course they'll still fight to be looked as differently from the G5. It will actually probably intensify since the reward for being the top G5 champ will become a shot in the playoff for a national championship as opposed to a consolation bowl game. The AAC will definitely want to be seen as a material step above over all of the G5 leagues.

(05-03-2021 01:19 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  So many details to work out, but here is a thought: if the 5-1-2 model gets approved, and the G5 gets a guaranteed access spot, does the AAC still fight to be disassociated from the G5?

It's a semantics argument - the phrase "group of 5" was written into the NY6 bowl bid. I wouldn't be surprised if the phrase disappears in the next contract.

Having said that, it will be interesting to see exactly how they write the new requirements, especially if the speculation about moving away from having conference champions tied to specific bowls disappears. They'll have to come up with an official term. Presumably the AAC would still argue for inclusion in that club, and if it's not tied to a contracted bowl that was part of the NY6, then they will work to figure out how to be a member of that club.

USFFan

(05-03-2021 01:19 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  So many details to work out, but here is a thought: if the 5-1-2 model gets approved, and the G5 gets a guaranteed access spot, does the AAC still fight to be disassociated from the G5?

The AAC just had more players picked in the NFL Draft as the MWC, MAC, Sun Belt and CUSA combined. That’s 11 teams, with one being Navy whose mission makes it difficult to get those type of athletes every year.

The AAC’s 19 players was closer to the 22 players that came from the BXII than to the next non-autonomous group.

(05-03-2021 01:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I’ve said this before and I will say it again. The 5-1-2 is still alive because the G5 don’t have an incentive to back the 12 team model. They know too well that there will be only one G5 representative in the playoff whether it’s 5-1-2 or 5-1-6. And under the 5-1-6, the G5 team will not get a bye. Why would they support the 12 team model?

This isn't an all-night diner. They're not going to get a long menu of choices. There will be one proposal that has the most support, and the only question will be whether to go with that format or stick with the current CFP. If the choice is between the current 4 and a 12 team format, and the 12 team deal gives everyone more money, then every G5 conference will support the 12 team format.

(05-03-2021 01:27 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 01:19 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  So many details to work out, but here is a thought: if the 5-1-2 model gets approved, and the G5 gets a guaranteed access spot, does the AAC still fight to be disassociated from the G5?

It's a semantics argument - the phrase "group of 5" was written into the NY6 bowl bid. I wouldn't be surprised if the phrase disappears in the next contract.

Having said that, it will be interesting to see exactly how they write the new requirements, especially if the speculation about moving away from having conference champions tied to specific bowls disappears. They'll have to come up with an official term. Presumably the AAC would still argue for inclusion in that club, and if it's not tied to a contracted bowl that was part of the NY6, then they will work to figure out how to be a member of that club.

USFFan

I could see there still being contract bowls similar to today.

Just keep the 6 contract bowls with the same tie-ins as today for the Rose, Sugar and Orange along with the the Fiesta, Peach and Cotton having open at-large spots.

If the first round games in an 8-team playoff are played on-campus, then the semifinals can rotate between the NY6 bowls just as before (with the tie-ins or at-large spots applied in non-semifinal years for those bowls).

The contractual/legal justification for giving the P5 "contract auto-bids bids" to the playoff is that they have to give up their contract spots in the Rose/Sugar/Orange once every 3 years. Just as now, the P5 can tell the G5, "If you can get a contract with a NY6 bowl, then you can get an auto-bid, too!" Of course, the free market realistically doesn't want to sign up any of the G5 leagues there, so it's a way for the P5 to get their playoff exclusivity without any antitrust concerns. (Of course, if the G5 willingly sign a restrictive contract with the P5, then those antitrust concerns largely go away, anyway.)

Basically, keep largely the same framework as today with as few changes as possible.

(05-03-2021 01:27 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 01:19 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  So many details to work out, but here is a thought: if the 5-1-2 model gets approved, and the G5 gets a guaranteed access spot, does the AAC still fight to be disassociated from the G5?

It's a semantics argument - the phrase "group of 5" was written into the NY6 bowl bid. I wouldn't be surprised if the phrase disappears in the next contract.

Having said that, it will be interesting to see exactly how they write the new requirements, especially if the speculation about moving away from having conference champions tied to specific bowls disappears. They'll have to come up with an official term. Presumably the AAC would still argue for inclusion in that club, and if it's not tied to a contracted bowl that was part of the NY6, then they will work to figure out how to be a member of that club.

USFFan

Well, if the P5 are each given an autobid, and there is one guaranteed spot to the teams designated "G5", I would think that the "G5" language would actually very much remain in play. They cannot give a guarantee to say "non-P5 teams" as they would likely include the Independents (unless of course all Independents are strictly categorized as wild card-only participants, or each Independent is treated different; i.e. ND is clearly P5, BYU would likely be P5 as well, but Army, UConn, etc. - who knows). There would need to be set language that specifies the guaranteed "G5" bid annually; how does that get defined? Non-P5? G5? The highest ranked champion of the AAC/MWC/C-USA/MAC/SBC (which still groups the G5 together)? There will be some term that defines it, P5/G5 or not.

Here is why I bring it up. If the AAC wants to contractually (via whatever new CFP agreement is written) distance itself from the G5, then it wouldn't have access to the G5 guaranteed bid. If they did that, which I don't think they will, then they would only be competing for one of the two wild card spots annually (and likely the spots that ND and the runner-ups to the SEC and B1G). Thus, the way I would interpret it at present is that the AAC still needs the G5 (to get the guaranteed access spot), which is interesting since Aresco has continued to say they want to separate from the G5.

As with everything, contract language will be important. And how the terms of the expanded playoff are explained and defined will be immensely important.

(05-03-2021 01:29 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 01:19 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  So many details to work out, but here is a thought: if the 5-1-2 model gets approved, and the G5 gets a guaranteed access spot, does the AAC still fight to be disassociated from the G5?

The AAC just had more players picked in the NFL Draft as the MWC, MAC, Sun Belt and CUSA combined. That’s 11 teams, with one being Navy whose mission makes it difficult to get those type of athletes every year.

The AAC’s 19 players was closer to the 22 players that came from the BXII than to the next non-autonomous group.

My post has nothing to do with on-field results or selections from this weekend's draft.

See my post to USFfan.

(05-03-2021 01:22 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 01:19 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  So many details to work out, but here is a thought: if the 5-1-2 model gets approved, and the G5 gets a guaranteed access spot, does the AAC still fight to be disassociated from the G5?

Of course they'll still fight to be looked as differently from the G5. It will actually probably intensify since the reward for being the top G5 champ will become a shot in the playoff for a national championship as opposed to a consolation bowl game. The AAC will definitely want to be seen as a material step above over all of the G5 leagues.

So how do they go about that? Do they attempt to solidify themselves as the top-G5 conference by regularly securing the G5 bid in a hypothetically expanded CFP? Or, do they say we are already better than the G5, so we do not need they guaranteed playoff spot (and wish to compete for one of the open wildcard spots)?

Option A still groups the AAC with the G5 (after Aresco has repeatedly said they do not want to be associated with the G5); Option B makes the AAC Champion's pathway into the expanded playoff harder (with no guaranteed playoff spot pathway).

(05-03-2021 02:15 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 01:27 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 01:19 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  So many details to work out, but here is a thought: if the 5-1-2 model gets approved, and the G5 gets a guaranteed access spot, does the AAC still fight to be disassociated from the G5?

It's a semantics argument - the phrase "group of 5" was written into the NY6 bowl bid. I wouldn't be surprised if the phrase disappears in the next contract.

Having said that, it will be interesting to see exactly how they write the new requirements, especially if the speculation about moving away from having conference champions tied to specific bowls disappears. They'll have to come up with an official term. Presumably the AAC would still argue for inclusion in that club, and if it's not tied to a contracted bowl that was part of the NY6, then they will work to figure out how to be a member of that club.

USFFan

Well, if the P5 are each given an autobid, and there is one guaranteed spot to the teams designated "G5", I would think that the "G5" language would actually very much remain in play. They cannot give a guarantee to say "non-P5 teams" as they would likely include the Independents (unless of course all Independents are strictly categorized as wild card-only participants, or each Independent is treated different; i.e. ND is clearly P5, BYU would likely be P5 as well, but Army, UConn, etc. - who knows). There would need to be set language that specifies the guaranteed "G5" bid annually; how does that get defined? Non-P5? G5? The highest ranked champion of the AAC/MWC/C-USA/MAC/SBC (which still groups the G5 together)? There will be some term that defines it, P5/G5 or not.

Here is why I bring it up. If the AAC wants to contractually (via whatever new CFP agreement is written) distance itself from the G5, then it wouldn't have access to the G5 guaranteed bid. If they did that, which I don't think they will, then they would only be competing for one of the two wild card spots annually (and likely the spots that ND and the runner-ups to the SEC and B1G). Thus, the way I would interpret it at present is that the AAC still needs the G5 (to get the guaranteed access spot), which is interesting since Aresco has continued to say they want to separate from the G5.

As with everything, contract language will be important. And how the terms of the expanded playoff are explained and defined will be immensely important.

The phrase "G5" doesnt exist in the CFP agreement anywhere right now. The term used to differentiate between power conferences getting a "full share" and the G5 conference getting a smaller share is "contract" and "non-contract" conferences.

So--there is no real danger in the AAC's continued effort to seek to distance themselves from the rest of the "G5" (which is basically a shorthand press created term for non-contract). Regardless---the point of the entire exercise from the AAC's point of view is to eventually become an AQ conference (which is unlikely anytime soon---but its a perception changing first step toward AQ---which is a reasonable long term goal to seek).