Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Resource: 5-1-6 Playoff using AP Poll from 2014-2020
Author Message
Crayton Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 860
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 73
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #1
Resource: 5-1-6 Playoff using AP Poll from 2014-2020
No Game Locations are listed. No changes were made to avoid rematches. No extra rules for a 7th champ were added. No requirement of a 13th game to get a bye was included. Here is the baseline. Do with it as you will.

2020:
#1 Alabama // #8 Oklahoma vs #9 Coastal Carolina
#2 Clemson // #7 Indiana vs. #10 Florida
#3 Ohio St // #6 Cincinnati vs. #11 Georgia
#4 Notre Dame // #5 Texas A&M vs. #25 Oregon

2019:
#1 LSU // #8 Baylor vs. #9 Alabama
#2 Ohio State // #7 Oregon vs. #10 Auburn
#3 Clemson // #6 Florida vs. #11 Wisconsin
#4 Oklahoma // #5 Georgia vs. #15 Memphis

2018:
#1 Alabama // #8 Michigan vs. #9 Washington
#2 Clemson // #7 UCF vs. #10 Florida
#3 Notre Dame // #6 Georgia vs #11 LSU
#4 Oklahoma // #5 Ohio State vs. #12 Washington St

2017:
#1 Clemson // #8 USC vs. #9 Penn State
#2 Oklahoma // #7 Auburn vs. #10 UCF
#3 Georgia // #6 Wisconsin vs. #11 Miami
#4 Alabama // #5 Ohio State vs. #12 Washington

2016:
#1 Alabama // #8 Wisconsin vs. #9 USC
#2 Ohio State // #7 Oklahoma vs. #10 Florida St
#3 Clemson // #6 Michigan vs. #11 Colorado
#4 Washington // #5 Penn State vs. #12 Western Michigan

2015:
#1 Clemson // #8 Notre Dame vs. #9 Florida St
#2 Alabama // #7 Ohio State vs. #10 North Carolina
#3 Michigan St // #6 Iowa vs. #11 TCU
#4 Oklahoma // #5 Stanford vs. # 14 Houston

2014:
#1 Alabama // #8 Mississippi St vs. #9 Ole Miss
#2 Florida St // #7 Michigan St vs. #10 Georgia Tech
#3 Oregon // #6 TCU vs. #11 Kansas St
#4 Baylor // #5 Ohio State vs. #21 Boise St
(This post was last modified: 05-03-2021 09:54 AM by Crayton.)
05-03-2021 08:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,894
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1317
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #2
RE: Resource: 5-1-6 Playoff using AP Poll from 2014-2020
(05-03-2021 08:09 AM)Crayton Wrote:  No Game Locations are listed. No changes were made to avoid rematches. No extra rules for a 7th champ were added. No requirement of a 13th game to get a bye was included. Here is the baseline. Do with it as you will.

IMO this shows the advantage of this system for the big kahunas - the SEC routinely gets two or even three teams in. And in 2017 and 2018, the two years the B1G was shut out of the playoff completely, which caused Delany to grumble, the B1G would have gotten two and three teams in, respectively.

What's perceived to be good for the SEC and B1G is likely to hold sway.
(This post was last modified: 05-03-2021 08:19 AM by quo vadis.)
05-03-2021 08:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wahoowa84 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,068
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 127
I Root For: UVa
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Resource: 5-1-6 Playoff using AP Poll from 2014-2020
Expanding to 5-1-6 does result in additional teams from the ACC and G5 making the playoffs. That isn’t true in the 5-1-2 format...where the additional teams are mainly from the SEC and BIG (as well as the guarantees). Larger playoffs does seem to reduce the beauty contest (fairness) bias.

In addition, the conference championship games are no longer elimination games. The conferences would need to market CCG as regional pride events...best team in the north, south, east, west or plains.

Finally, I still like the CFP committee making the seedings. It looks odd to see Baylor as #4 in 2014...rather than OSU.
05-03-2021 08:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,894
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1317
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #4
RE: Resource: 5-1-6 Playoff using AP Poll from 2014-2020
(05-03-2021 08:38 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Expanding to 5-1-6 does result in additional teams from the ACC and G5 making the playoffs. That isn’t true in the 5-1-2 format...where the additional teams are mainly from the SEC and BIG (as well as the guarantees). Larger playoffs does seem to reduce the beauty contest (fairness) bias.

In addition, the conference championship games are no longer elimination games. The conferences would need to market CCG as regional pride events...best team in the north, south, east, west or plains.

Finally, I still like the CFP committee making the seedings. It looks odd to see Baylor as #4 in 2014...rather than OSU.

That's because 2014 was odd - it is the only time where the AP poll and the CFP committee disagreed on who the four playoff teams should be. The AP had Baylor at #4, ahead of #5 Ohio State. For all other years, the AP and CFP committee agree on the four teams, though there have been some differences in seeding - which is basically meaningless anyway.
05-03-2021 08:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,681
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 300
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Top of Mt Rushmore
Post: #5
RE: Resource: 5-1-6 Playoff using AP Poll from 2014-2020
I would have preferred the CFP rankings used but this is good work.

Call me crazy, but I’d prefer to dump the committee and let the old BCS formula determine:

Who the top G5 champ is

Who the 6 at large representatives are

Overall seeding for the field

This committee is too prone to chicanery and I think they under value teams that aren’t traditional blue bloods.
05-03-2021 10:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,894
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1317
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #6
RE: Resource: 5-1-6 Playoff using AP Poll from 2014-2020
(05-03-2021 10:04 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I would have preferred the CFP rankings used but this is good work.

Call me crazy, but I’d prefer to dump the committee and let the old BCS formula determine:

Who the top G5 champ is

Who the 6 at large representatives are

Overall seeding for the field

This committee is too prone to chicanery and I think they under value teams that aren’t traditional blue bloods.

IMO there is no evidence of chicanery among the CFP committee - their results have basically comported with those of the human polls and the computers the past seven years.

But if using the old BCS formula, or just computers to pick the top G5 and at-large reps makes people feel like there is less bias involved, then sure, why not?
(This post was last modified: 05-03-2021 10:09 AM by quo vadis.)
05-03-2021 10:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Fighting Muskie Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,681
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 300
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Top of Mt Rushmore
Post: #7
RE: Resource: 5-1-6 Playoff using AP Poll from 2014-2020
(05-03-2021 08:09 AM)Crayton Wrote:  No Game Locations are listed. No changes were made to avoid rematches. No extra rules for a 7th champ were added. No requirement of a 13th game to get a bye was included. Here is the baseline. Do with it as you will.

2020:

#1 Alabama (Sugar)// #8 Oklahoma vs #9 Coastal Carolina
#2 Clemson (Orange)// #7 Indiana vs. #10 Florida
#3 Ohio St (Rose)// #6 Cincinnati vs. #11 Georgia
#4 Notre Dame (Fiesta)// #5 Texas A&M vs. #25 Oregon

2019:
#1 LSU (Sugar) // #8 Baylor vs. #9 Alabama
#2 Ohio State (Rose)// #7 Oregon vs. #10 Auburn
#3 Clemson (Orange)// #6 Florida vs. #11 Wisconsin
#4 Oklahoma (Fiesta)// #5 Georgia vs. #15 Memphis

2018:
#1 Alabama (Sugar)// #8 Michigan vs. #9 Washington
#2 Clemson (Orange)// #7 UCF vs. #10 Florida
#3 Notre Dame (Rose)// #6 Georgia vs #11 LSU
#4 Oklahoma (Fiesta)// #5 Ohio State vs. #12 Washington St

2017:
#1 Clemson (Orange)// #8 USC vs. #9 Penn State
#2 Oklahoma (Fiesta) // #7 Auburn vs. #10 UCF
#3 Georgia (Sugar)// #6 Wisconsin vs. #11 Miami
#4 Alabama (Rose) // #5 Ohio State vs. #12 Washington

2016:
#1 Alabama (Sugar)// #8 Wisconsin vs. #9 USC
#2 Ohio State (Rose)// #7 Oklahoma vs. #10 Florida St
#3 Clemson (Orange)// #6 Michigan vs. #11 Colorado
#4 Washington (Fiesta)// #5 Penn State vs. #12 Western Michigan

2015:
#1 Clemson (Orange)// #8 Notre Dame vs. #9 Florida St
#2 Alabama (Sugar)// #7 Ohio State vs. #10 North Carolina
#3 Michigan St (Rose)// #6 Iowa vs. #11 TCU
#4 Oklahoma (Fiesta)// #5 Stanford vs. # 14 Houston

2014:
#1 Alabama (Sugar)// #8 Mississippi St vs. #9 Ole Miss
#2 Florida St (Orange)// #7 Michigan St vs. #10 Georgia Tech
#3 Oregon (Rose)// #6 TCU vs. #11 Kansas St
#4 Baylor (Fiesta)// #5 Ohio State vs. #21 Boise St

If you were to go back to the 4 BCS bowls as the quarter final host sites here’s how they’d fall (see above)

The only times a bowl doesn’t get one of their traditional tie ins are:

2016 Fiesta
2017 Rose
2018 Rose
2020 Fiesta

2 of those are completely unavoidable as ND was in the top 4.
05-03-2021 10:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,050
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 690
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #8
RE: Resource: 5-1-6 Playoff using AP Poll from 2014-2020
(05-03-2021 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 10:04 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I would have preferred the CFP rankings used but this is good work.

Call me crazy, but I’d prefer to dump the committee and let the old BCS formula determine:

Who the top G5 champ is

Who the 6 at large representatives are

Overall seeding for the field

This committee is too prone to chicanery and I think they under value teams that aren’t traditional blue bloods.

IMO there is no evidence of chicanery among the CFP committee - their results have basically comported with those of the human polls and the computers the past seven years.

But if using the old BCS formula, or just computers to pick the top G5 and at-large reps makes people feel like there is less bias involved, then sure, why not?

It's sort of 6 on the one hand and a half dozen on the other.

I'm generally a CFP committee skeptic (which is why I have long favored P5 champ auto-bids), but they honestly have the potential to do less "damage" when there's a combination of a larger field plus auto-bids (similar to the NCAA Tournament). The treatment between #4 and #5 is a huge cliff in today's system even if the differences between those two teams might be miniscule and totally subjective, so that provides the CFP committee with a ton of power right now and open to critiques.

However, if you put in 5 slots (the P5 champs) that are completely out of the hands of the CFP committee and then 1 slot (the best G5 champ) where the CFP committee has influence but has restrictions, then having the rest of the field filled out by the CFP committee is a lot less problematic. It's not fun being the #13 team in a 12-team playoff, but that's less of an issue than being shut out at #5 (where you may have a team that won a P5 championship and/or a lot of tough games).

Note that BCS rankings still weighted human polls the most in its formula, so there was still a heavy subjective component. A portion of the field being auto-bids where the CFP committee has no choice makes the process a lot more palatable (at least to me) - that will never eliminate complaints about human bias, but the *damage* from any real or perceived human bias is lessened to a greater degree.
05-03-2021 10:23 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wahoowa84 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,068
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 127
I Root For: UVa
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Resource: 5-1-6 Playoff using AP Poll from 2014-2020
(05-03-2021 10:04 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I would have preferred the CFP rankings used but this is good work.

Call me crazy, but I’d prefer to dump the committee and let the old BCS formula determine:

Who the top G5 champ is

Who the 6 at large representatives are

Overall seeding for the field

This committee is too prone to chicanery and I think they under value teams that aren’t traditional blue bloods.

IMO, the Committee has been an improvement over the computers (BCS aggregation of polls)...and BCS was an improvement over disparate polls. Having some guaranteed selections for P5 champs would also be an improvement over the Committee. It provides P5 teams a direct path to the playoffs...win your conference championship (on the field) and advance.

Even though beauty contests can have their place, it’s harder to get broader fan appeal (maybe due to concerns about “fairness”) when subjective polls dominate the selection process. It’s amazing how slowly college football moves in accepting this principle.
(This post was last modified: 05-03-2021 10:59 AM by Wahoowa84.)
05-03-2021 10:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,746
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 147
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Resource: 5-1-6 Playoff using AP Poll from 2014-2020
I prefer the 5-1+2 model: P5 champs, top G5 champ, + 2 winners of the Wild Card games (from 4 at large teams)

This gives an automatic CFP Bowl path to the P5 champs, access to the G5 and a way for top non-P5-champs to reach the CFP by proving it on the field. While not strict elimination games, the P5 CCGs become true Play-In games...which raises their profile.

I would prefer to follow bowl tradition in arranging the matchups (Rose always = PAC v. B1G), but can see that such a structure could unfairly benefit a lower-ranked participant. So, it would be more a CFP bowl preference for the host champ.

QUARTERFINALS
Rose: B1G or PAC
Sugar: SEC or B12
Orange: ACC or B1G/SEC/ND
Fiesta: PAC or B12

SEMIFINALS
Cotton: Quarterfinals winners
Peach: Quarterfinals winners

I like the CFP Selection Committee. The process improves because the CFP seeding must include the P5 champs and top G5 and the non-champs are forced to win a Wild Card game to reach the CFP quarterfinals.

2020:
WILD CARD
4-seed game: #9 Georgia @ #4 Notre Dame
5-seed game: #7 Florida @ #5 Texas A&M

QUARTERFINALS
SUGAR: (1)Alabama v. (8)Oregon
ORANGE: (2)Clemson v. (7)Cincinnati
ROSE: (3)Ohio St v. (6)Oklahoma
FIESTA: (4)Notre Dame v. (5)Texas A&M

SEMIFINALS
COTTON: (1)Alabama v. (4)Notre Dame
PEACH: (2)Clemson v. (3)Ohio State

2019:
WILD CARD
5-seed game: #8 Wisconsin @ #5 Georgia
7-seed game: #9 Florida @ #7 Baylor

QUARTERFINALS:
SUGAR: (1)LSU v. (8)Memphis
ROSE: (2)Ohio State v. (7)Baylor
ORANGE: (3)Clemson v. (6)Oregon
FIESTA: (4)Oklahoma v. (5)Georgia

SEMIFINALS
COTTON: (1)LSU v. (4)Oklahoma
PEACH: (2)Ohio St. v. (3)Clemson
(This post was last modified: 05-03-2021 01:54 PM by YNot.)
05-03-2021 01:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 18,091
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 859
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #11
RE: Resource: 5-1-6 Playoff using AP Poll from 2014-2020
(05-03-2021 08:09 AM)Crayton Wrote:  No Game Locations are listed. No changes were made to avoid rematches. No extra rules for a 7th champ were added. No requirement of a 13th game to get a bye was included. Here is the baseline. Do with it as you will.

To be clear: These rankings are your personal opinions; they are not the CFP committee's ranking of teams in these seasons.
05-03-2021 01:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Fighting Muskie Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,681
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 300
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Top of Mt Rushmore
Post: #12
RE: Resource: 5-1-6 Playoff using AP Poll from 2014-2020
(05-03-2021 01:57 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 08:09 AM)Crayton Wrote:  No Game Locations are listed. No changes were made to avoid rematches. No extra rules for a 7th champ were added. No requirement of a 13th game to get a bye was included. Here is the baseline. Do with it as you will.

To be clear: These rankings are your personal opinions; they are not the CFP committee's ranking of teams in these seasons.

If you’ll notice the title of the thread, he used the AP poll for his rankings.
05-03-2021 03:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crayton Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 860
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 73
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Resource: 5-1-6 Playoff using AP Poll from 2014-2020
(05-03-2021 08:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO this shows the advantage of this system for the big kahunas - the SEC routinely gets two or even three teams in. And in 2017 and 2018, the two years the B1G was shut out of the playoff completely, which caused Delany to grumble, the B1G would have gotten two and three teams in, respectively.

What's perceived to be good for the SEC and B1G is likely to hold sway.

The SEC would actually place 4, 5, and 4 teams these last 3 years. That's over a third of the field and of the conference in 2019! It makes me wonder if there would be BCS-style caps per conference? Probably not. I've toyed with the idea of eliminating teams who have lost to 3 other playoff teams... but it seemed too arbitrary, though it would function like a conference cap.
(This post was last modified: 05-03-2021 09:39 PM by Crayton.)
05-03-2021 08:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crayton Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 860
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 73
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Resource: 5-1-6 Playoff using AP Poll from 2014-2020
(05-03-2021 08:38 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  In addition, the conference championship games are no longer elimination games. The conferences would need to market CCG as regional pride events...best team in the north, south, east, west or plains.

It's interesting how one of the big plusses of the 5-1-2 model (making CCGs great again), is diminished by adding 4 at larges. Are there ways to lessen that diminishment?

1. Reserve the BYEs for teams who play and win their Conference Championship. Yes, that means a #1 Notre Dame would have to play in the first-round, but #2 Alabama also had to play and win a 13th game against a Top 12 team to get into the quarterfinals... so it actually makes things even.

2. Maybe place a strict limit on the number of teams who can qualify after losing their CCG (max of 2). This eliminates that in-between space for teams ranked #5-#9 who likely won't get a BYE with a CCG win, but aren't in much danger of falling out of the Top 12 completely with a CCG loss. Generally, it gives no guarantees for losers... amping up the CCGs' importance.

3. Take away one of the at-large spots. Reserve another spot for a second G5 champ if they place in the Top 16. This not only heightens the importance of P5 CCGs, but spreads that importance to the G5 CCGs too.
05-03-2021 09:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crayton Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 860
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 73
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Resource: 5-1-6 Playoff using AP Poll from 2014-2020
(05-03-2021 10:19 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The only times a bowl doesn’t get one of their traditional tie ins are:

2016 Fiesta
2017 Rose
2018 Rose
2020 Fiesta

2 of those are completely unavoidable as ND was in the top 4.

Quarterfinals in those bowls (whether part of an 8- or 12-team playoff) are appealing, aren't they.

I'd probably modify 2016 like below. I'm avoiding the Michigan-Colorado rematch, matching two Big 8 rivals (Fiesta is tied to Big 12), and (likely) pairing the Big Ten and Pac-12 champs in the Rose. These are the types of maneuvers we can keep a committee around to execute.

2016:
#1 Alabama (Sugar)// #8 Wisconsin vs. #9 USC
#2 Ohio State (Fiesta)// #7 Oklahoma vs. #11 Colorado
#3 Clemson (Orange)// #6 Michigan vs. #10 Florida St
#4 Washington (Rose)// #5 Penn State vs. #12 Western Michigan
05-03-2021 09:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crayton Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 860
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 73
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Resource: 5-1-6 Playoff using AP Poll from 2014-2020
Alright, below is an implementation of the 3 suggestions above to Wahoowa84, and using the Rose/Fiesta/Sugar/Orange as suggested by Fighting Muskie. Rematches are avoided for the first round and among the Top 8 teams. The "committee" also modifies ranks of Top 4 teams, so it appears the Top 4 are the ones with byes.

2020:
#1 Alabama (Sugar)// #8 Oklahoma vs #9 Coastal Carolina
#2 Clemson (Orange)// #7 Indiana vs. #10 Florida
#3 Ohio St (Rose)// #6 Texas A&M vs. #11 Georgia
#4 Cincinnati (Fiesta)// #5 Notre Dame vs. #25 Oregon

2019:
#1 LSU (Sugar)// #8 Baylor vs. #9 Alabama
#2 Ohio State (Rose)// #7 Oregon vs. #10 Auburn
#3 Clemson (Orange)// #6 Florida vs. #13 Penn State
#4 Oklahoma (Fiesta)// #5 Georgia vs. #15 Memphis

2018:
#1 Alabama (Sugar)// #8 Michigan vs. #9 Washington
#2 Clemson (Orange)// #7 UCF vs. #10 Florida
#3 Oklahoma (Fiesta)// #6 Georgia vs #11 LSU
#4 Ohio State (Rose)// #5 Notre Dame vs. #12 Washington St

2017:
#1 Clemson (Orange)// #8 USC vs. #9 Penn State
#2 Oklahoma (Fiesta)// #7 Auburn vs. #10 UCF
#3 Georgia (Sugar)// #6 Wisconsin vs. #12 Washington
#4 Ohio State (Rose)// #5 Alabama vs. #14 Notre Dame

2016:
#1 Alabama (Sugar)// #8 Wisconsin vs. #9 USC
#2 Clemson (Orange)// #6 Michigan vs. #10 Florida St
#3 Penn State (Rose)// #7 Oklahoma vs. #11 Colorado
#4 Washington (Fiesta)// #5 Ohio State vs. #12 Western Michigan

2015:
#1 Clemson (Orange)// #8 Notre Dame vs. #9 Florida St
#2 Alabama (Sugar)// #7 Ohio State vs. #10 North Carolina
#3 Stanford (Fiesta)// #6 Iowa vs. #11 TCU
#4 Michigan St (Rose)// #5 Oklahoma vs. #14 Houston

2014:
#1 Alabama (Sugar)// #7 Michigan St vs. #9 Ole Miss
#2 Florida St (Orange)// #8 Mississippi St vs. #11 Kansas St
#3 Oregon (Fiesta)// #6 TCU vs. #10 Georgia Tech
#4 Ohio State (Rose)// #5 Baylor vs. #21 Boise St
05-03-2021 10:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,050
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 690
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #17
RE: Resource: 5-1-6 Playoff using AP Poll from 2014-2020
(05-03-2021 09:24 PM)Crayton Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 08:38 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  In addition, the conference championship games are no longer elimination games. The conferences would need to market CCG as regional pride events...best team in the north, south, east, west or plains.

It's interesting how one of the big plusses of the 5-1-2 model (making CCGs great again), is diminished by adding 4 at larges. Are there ways to lessen that diminishment?

1. Reserve the BYEs for teams who play and win their Conference Championship. Yes, that means a #1 Notre Dame would have to play in the first-round, but #2 Alabama also had to play and win a 13th game against a Top 12 team to get into the quarterfinals... so it actually makes things even.

2. Maybe place a strict limit on the number of teams who can qualify after losing their CCG (max of 2). This eliminates that in-between space for teams ranked #5-#9 who likely won't get a BYE with a CCG win, but aren't in much danger of falling out of the Top 12 completely with a CCG loss. Generally, it gives no guarantees for losers... amping up the CCGs' importance.

3. Take away one of the at-large spots. Reserve another spot for a second G5 champ if they place in the Top 16. This not only heightens the importance of P5 CCGs, but spreads that importance to the G5 CCGs too.

K.I.S.S.

Your original post has the right format if we end up having a 12-team playoff. If you can’t explain how the playoff system works to the average 10-year old, then it’s too complicated.

People are so concerned about the outlier outcomes that it’s the proverbial missing the forest for the trees. Any new playoff is simple: auto-bids for the P5 champs, the top G5 champ, and then at-larges with no restrictions for the rest of the field (whether it’s an 8 or 12-team playoff). If 6 SEC teams get at-large bids, then so be it. The P5 certainly want to keep the value of their conference championship games, but they’re not myopic enough to give another playoff spot to a G5 champ in order to do that. They’d take a 1000 more P5 at-large teams (including ND) over a 2nd G5 champ if that’s the choice.
05-03-2021 11:04 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,050
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 690
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #18
RE: Resource: 5-1-6 Playoff using AP Poll from 2014-2020
(05-03-2021 10:14 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Alright, below is an implementation of the 3 suggestions above to Wahoowa84, and using the Rose/Fiesta/Sugar/Orange as suggested by Fighting Muskie. Rematches are avoided for the first round and among the Top 8 teams. The "committee" also modifies ranks of Top 4 teams, so it appears the Top 4 are the ones with byes.

2020:
#1 Alabama (Sugar)// #8 Oklahoma vs #9 Coastal Carolina
#2 Clemson (Orange)// #7 Indiana vs. #10 Florida
#3 Ohio St (Rose)// #6 Texas A&M vs. #11 Georgia
#4 Cincinnati (Fiesta)// #5 Notre Dame vs. #25 Oregon

2019:
#1 LSU (Sugar)// #8 Baylor vs. #9 Alabama
#2 Ohio State (Rose)// #7 Oregon vs. #10 Auburn
#3 Clemson (Orange)// #6 Florida vs. #13 Penn State
#4 Oklahoma (Fiesta)// #5 Georgia vs. #15 Memphis

2018:
#1 Alabama (Sugar)// #8 Michigan vs. #9 Washington
#2 Clemson (Orange)// #7 UCF vs. #10 Florida
#3 Oklahoma (Fiesta)// #6 Georgia vs #11 LSU
#4 Ohio State (Rose)// #5 Notre Dame vs. #12 Washington St

2017:
#1 Clemson (Orange)// #8 USC vs. #9 Penn State
#2 Oklahoma (Fiesta)// #7 Auburn vs. #10 UCF
#3 Georgia (Sugar)// #6 Wisconsin vs. #12 Washington
#4 Ohio State (Rose)// #5 Alabama vs. #14 Notre Dame

2016:
#1 Alabama (Sugar)// #8 Wisconsin vs. #9 USC
#2 Clemson (Orange)// #6 Michigan vs. #10 Florida St
#3 Penn State (Rose)// #7 Oklahoma vs. #11 Colorado
#4 Washington (Fiesta)// #5 Ohio State vs. #12 Western Michigan

2015:
#1 Clemson (Orange)// #8 Notre Dame vs. #9 Florida St
#2 Alabama (Sugar)// #7 Ohio State vs. #10 North Carolina
#3 Stanford (Fiesta)// #6 Iowa vs. #11 TCU
#4 Michigan St (Rose)// #5 Oklahoma vs. #14 Houston

2014:
#1 Alabama (Sugar)// #7 Michigan St vs. #9 Ole Miss
#2 Florida St (Orange)// #8 Mississippi St vs. #11 Kansas St
#3 Oregon (Fiesta)// #6 TCU vs. #10 Georgia Tech
#4 Ohio State (Rose)// #5 Baylor vs. #21 Boise St

Appreciate the work, but it will be a cold day in hell when we see the AAC champ jumping ND simply because the former won a conference.

Remember that ND has a vote equal to an entire conference for the playoff system, which means they have veto power over any proposal as a single school. I need to keep telling people that the P5 absolutely, positively are NOT bothered by ND. The Irish make a lot of money for the system, so the powers that be welcome them with open arms even if fans don’t like it.

Who announced the current CFP system to the world? ND AD Jack Swarbrick.

Who is on the working group for CFP expansion today? ND AD Jack Swarbrick.

ND has legitimate and real structural power here.

Like I mentioned before, your original post is really how a 12-team playoff would look if we go to that format. Once we start trying to seed teams based on whether they won a conference or not, it becomes way too unwieldy if only because you NEED to account for a situation where ND is in the top 4. They are so much more valuable in a top 4 slot to the overall system compared to a G5 champ (and frankly all P5 teams outside of maybe Alabama and Ohio State) that the Irish aren’t going to be disadvantaged.
(This post was last modified: 05-03-2021 11:19 PM by Frank the Tank.)
05-03-2021 11:17 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,052
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 302
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #19
RE: Resource: 5-1-6 Playoff using AP Poll from 2014-2020
No G5 will ever get a bye. The top G5 schools would not be considered a conference champion on the same level with a P5 conference champion, stop, period, end of story. The conference SoS simply makes that impossible.

But further, since there are 5 P5 conferences they cannot go by conference champion as automatically getting a bye. They don't do it in any other NCAA tournament or playoff, so they wont do it here.

So Georgia, Alabama and Notre Dame would have been given byes as top four schools in recent years that did not win their conferences.

I am also not convinced the format would be 4, then 4, with the NY6 games staggered. I strongly suspect all 12 teams would play a NY6 game together. This is because fans still go to one Bowl game this way. The turn around is too short for fans of say Georgia who went to the Bowl game in Florida to then book rooms and flights out to California or Arizona for the next round. Each of the NY6 bowls will want full stadiums.

So I think you will get 6 playing in the first round, with the highest two seeds that win getting a bye and the four lowest seeds playing quarter final games in the higher seeds home stadium.

Round One, roughly New Year
1 vs 12
2 vs 11
3 vs 10
4 vs 9
5 vs 8
6 vs 7

Round Two, the following weekend (assuming the highest seeds all win)
3 hosts 6 (Q1)
4 hosts 5 (Q2)

Round Three
1 hosts winner of Q2
2 hosts winner of Q1

National Championship
winners of semifinals face off
05-04-2021 12:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
usffan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,933
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 665
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #20
RE: Resource: 5-1-6 Playoff using AP Poll from 2014-2020
(05-03-2021 08:38 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Expanding to 5-1-6 does result in additional teams from the ACC and G5 making the playoffs. That isn’t true in the 5-1-2 format...where the additional teams are mainly from the SEC and BIG (as well as the guarantees). Larger playoffs does seem to reduce the beauty contest (fairness) bias.

In addition, the conference championship games are no longer elimination games. The conferences would need to market CCG as regional pride events...best team in the north, south, east, west or plains.

Finally, I still like the CFP committee making the seedings. It looks odd to see Baylor as #4 in 2014...rather than OSU.

While this is true (and, let's face it, it's already true - both Notre Dame and Clemson this year, hell, Bama made it in 2017 and Ohio State in 2014 without even MAKING their conference championship games!), it almost certainly will give them something to play for in the 12 team version of this, since it's unlikely that a conference game loser would be gifted a top 4 seed (which comes with a bye). Every team in a conference championship game would thus have something legitimate to play for.

USFFan
05-04-2021 09:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2021 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.