This is huge news for all G5 teams, IMO.

Gives schools like Rice a much better shot at a CFP spot if you go undefeated and schedule the right teams.

First move in a long time that gives more of a seat at the table to G5 teams.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...champions/

(06-10-2021 02:36 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  This is huge news for all G5 teams, IMO.

Gives schools like Rice a much better shot at a CFP spot if you go undefeated and schedule the right teams.

First move in a long time that gives more of a seat at the table to G5 teams.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...champions/

It will take a lot than an increased number of slots to give Rice a chance.

To me, this plan smacks of further monopolization disguised as equal opportunity. Why? There are no guaranteed slots for any of the conferences. The SEC knows its champ will always be ranked in the top six, and in the proposed format it can get more of its teams in through the committee evaluation process. As someone who merely wants to see more balance across the college football landscape, I do not like this proposal.

The next proposal should be this: eight teams, with five of them being the champs of the P5 conferences, one being the best G5 team, and two wild cards. I have been saying this for 15 years now. This format makes things less vulnerable to subjectivity and manipulation (though it does not eliminate these issues), and it essentially makes it so that the SEC cannot get more than two teams into the playoff (though this could also be undermined if a single conference can get both wild cards). This format still guarantees the G5 a seat at the table every season amongst a smaller field, and that is where we need to start.

A playoff with five SEC teams and a single G5 team in perpetuity would hurt the G5 more than it would help it. I'm all for progress, but the 12-team proposal doesn't pass the smell test for me. I hope there is some kind of counterproposal out there.

(Note: I hold out no hope for us specifically. Our ship sailed a long time ago. I just want D1A college football to be interesting again.)

I didn't see anything about a guaranteed spot for a G5 team, though I'm pretty sure most G5 teams play a tough enough OOC schedule that running the table should get them into the top 12.

I still think 8 is the right number of teams for the CFP. I'm surprised they would go straight from 2 rounds of games to 4.

(06-10-2021 04:01 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  I didn't see anything about a guaranteed spot for a G5 team, though I'm pretty sure most G5 teams play a tough enough OOC schedule that running the table should get them into the top 12.

I still think 8 is the right number of teams for the CFP. I'm surprised they would go straight from 2 rounds of games to 4.

The G5 would have a guaranteed slot in the 12-team proposal because the six highest-ranked conference champs would get in. At least one of those teams would necessarily have to come from the G5. That is how I understand the proposal. (Mind you, I still don't like it, as I explained in my previous post.)

Actually, just this past year, if the same final CFP rankings would have held, the 6 conference champions would have been:

Alabama
Clemson
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Cincinnati
Coastal Carolina

Pac-12 would have been on the outside, looking in. At large/first round matchups would have been:

Cincinnati v. Indiana
Coastal Carolina v. Iowa State
Notre Dame v. Georgia
Texas A&M v. Florida

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if the committee further manipulated their rankings, based on their "assessments," to favor some other teams. But it would have been hard (though not impossible) to raise up a Pac-12 conference champion (which they ranked #25 in the final poll) to be a top 6 conference champion.

I don't think there's another CFP year that would support this right now, and I do fear that the rankings in the future would do everything possible to prevent 2 G5 from getting in. But we'll never know unless they try to.

EDIT: 2 edits here: WRC's conference name correction, and the fact that Oregon (#25), not USC (#17), was the conference champ.

Pac-12

It's too many teams. It's a watered-down playoff at 12. At least the small conferences will be represented. Rice can make it. Keep the early schedule challenging now more than ever.

Huge benefit for Rice and all of the G5.

There’s room for two G5’s (last year is perfect example).

And Rice could even make it with 12-1 against the kind of OOC schedule we play.

The P5 pulls the strings, and I don't think they would ever agree to a system that guarantees a G5 slot but has only 2 at-large bids. If it takes 6 at-larges to get the G5 a spot, so be it. I like the prospect of on-campus games and the fact that only champions get a bye, so the SEC can get only 1. Also, the possibility that if a P5 conference has a down year, 2 G5's could get in (although the committee will likely "take care of" that)

It could be incredibly watered-down, but at least 6 conference champions will get a shot. There is no perfect system.

I went back and pulled the final committee rankings for 2019 to get a more "normal" year with full schedules. That would have been:

Byes: 1 LSU, 2 Ohio St., 3 Clemson, 4 Oklahoma

On-campus first round games:

17 Memphis @ 5 Georgia
11 Utah @ 6 Oregon (I assume the rankings would be massaged to avoid this)
10 Penn. St. @ 7 Baylor
9 Florida @ 8 Wisconsin

Count by conference
3: SEC, Big Ten
2: XII, PAC-12
1: ACC, American
0: C-USA, MAC, MWC, Sun Belt

(06-10-2021 04:06 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 04:01 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  I didn't see anything about a guaranteed spot for a G5 team, though I'm pretty sure most G5 teams play a tough enough OOC schedule that running the table should get them into the top 12.

I still think 8 is the right number of teams for the CFP. I'm surprised they would go straight from 2 rounds of games to 4.

The G5 would have a guaranteed slot in the 12-team proposal because the six highest-ranked conference champs would get in. At least one of those teams would necessarily have to come from the G5. That is how I understand the proposal. (Mind you, I still don't like it, as I explained in my previous post.)

I'm sure this will have the SEC figuring out a way to split up into two conferences

(06-10-2021 03:59 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  (Note: I hold out no hope for us specifically. Our ship sailed a long time ago. I just want D1A college football to be interesting again.)

so, thatd be MD1IA?

This is a clear money grab... allowing for two p5 conferences with two highly regarded teams to get into the playoffs.... potentially even creating a 'rematch' or 'showdown' of a previous, hotly contested game perhaps decided by home field advantage.

While it does statistically improve the g5 chances, I'm betting that it will much more frequently favor p5. For every g5 team that gets in, there will be 2+ more p5 teams that get in.

(06-11-2021 11:03 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  While it does statistically improve the g5 chances, I'm betting that it will much more frequently favor p5. For every g5 team that gets in, there will be 2+ more p5 teams that get in.

True, but hasn't the current system been 100% P5, 0% G5 to date?

Every expansion of the field helps our chances. From 12 ti 16 is a short jump. I expect someday we will be at 32, and at that point every conference champion will have a shot.

(06-11-2021 12:35 PM)MJY Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 11:03 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  While it does statistically improve the g5 chances, I'm betting that it will much more frequently favor p5. For every g5 team that gets in, there will be 2+ more p5 teams that get in.

True, but hasn't the current system been 100% P5, 0% G5 to date?

My point is simply that the deciding factor was that more games meant more money for p5, which is part of what drives the chasm between p and g 5. The fact that it may also benefit g5 on occasion is incidental.

It's like saying there will be more scraps from a table that seats 12 than from one that seats 8, but the point of the bigger table is to create more food to be given to the elite, whether or not they are at the table. The 'rich' will get even fatter, while a few of the 'poor' will get an occasional meal.

(06-10-2021 06:02 PM)franklyconfused Wrote:  I went back and pulled the final committee rankings for 2019 to get a more "normal" year with full schedules. That would have been:

Byes: 1 LSU, 2 Ohio St., 3 Clemson, 4 Oklahoma

On-campus first round games:

17 Memphis @ 5 Georgia
11 Utah @ 6 Oregon (I assume the rankings would be massaged to avoid this)
10 Penn. St. @ 7 Baylor
9 Florida @ 8 Wisconsin

Count by conference
3: SEC, Big Ten
2: XII, PAC-12
1: ACC, American
0: C-USA, MAC, MWC, Sun Belt

An article on ESPN+ today (paywalled if not subscribed to ESPN+) gives what would have been the 12-team playoff fields going back to 2014:

2014: 1 G5 (12-seed Boise St.), 3 SEC, 3 XII, 2 B10, 2 Pac12, 1 ACC
2015: 1 G5 (12-seed UH), 4 ACC/ND, 3 B10, 2 XII, 1 SEC, 1 Pac12
2016: 1 G5 (12-seed Western Michigan), 4 B10, 3 Pac12, 2 ACC, 1 SEC, 1 XII
2017: 1 G5 (12-seed UCF), 3 B10, 3 SEC, 2 Pac12, 2 ACC, 1 XII
2018: 1 G5 (8-seed UCF), 4 SEC, 3 B10, 2 ACC/ND, 1 Pac12, 1 XII

ETA: UT would not have made any of the fields, while Baylor and TCU would have made it twice, and UH and A&M also would have gone once each.

(06-11-2021 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 12:35 PM)MJY Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 11:03 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  While it does statistically improve the g5 chances, I'm betting that it will much more frequently favor p5. For every g5 team that gets in, there will be 2+ more p5 teams that get in.

True, but hasn't the current system been 100% P5, 0% G5 to date?

My point is simply that the deciding factor was that more games meant more money for p5, which is part of what drives the chasm between p and g 5. The fact that it may also benefit g5 on occasion is incidental.

It's like saying there will be more scraps from a table that seats 12 than from one that seats 8, but the point of the bigger table is to create more food to be given to the elite, whether or not they are at the table. The 'rich' will get even fatter, while a few of the 'poor' will get an occasional meal.

I'm not disagreeing with any of your comments, but let's acknowledge that this is a positive step, and one that I didn't expect to see for years, if ever. I thought a split between P5 and G5 was more likely than postseason inclusion. Is this perfect? No. We can still win our conference and go undefeated and not make this playoff. But at least one G5 conference champ will make it - which makes our need to get out of CUSA even more desperate. Coastal Carolina was probably an outlier last year. I would expect the G5 spot to go to AAC or MWC most years.

This is a big move for the CFP. I wouldn't expect that 16, 24, or 32 jump anytime soon. Hopefully the more inclusive playoff opportunity will cause some dispersion among the talent in recruiting. I don't anticipate a big movement of 4 and 5 stars, but more schools at least have a chance in this set up, which is meaningfully better than today.
Not perfect but better. There is no scenario where the money distribution won't favor the big P5's

(06-16-2021 10:21 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  Not perfect but better. There is no scenario where the money distribution won't favor the big P5's

Also not disagreeing with you...

My perspective though is that this is $10mm more for p5 and $2mm more for g5.... Which is of course better than $10mm for p5 and zero for p5, but it increases the divide by an additional $8mm.