This is exactly what I expected from the PAC and soon to be from the B1G. I don’t care what puppet they bring in as the successor to Scott; it will be the same story. A 6+6 is by no means compatible with the Rose Bowl. You can’t make the Rose Bowl a QF every year with the likely chance that the B1G and PAC don’t both play in it virtually every year. This has been the impediment to the CFP all along. I’m shocked fans here weren’t expecting a major push back.

From the Mercury News article above

Quote:The next step in the transformation of college football’s postseason comes Tuesday, when the university presidents in charge of the CFP review the expansion model, which would create two additional rounds and provide greater access for conferences that have been left behind.

It will be very interesting what comes out on Tuesday from the Big 10 and Pac 12 presidents

(06-19-2021 07:28 PM)solohawks Wrote:  From the Mercury News article above

Quote:The next step in the transformation of college football’s postseason comes Tuesday, when the university presidents in charge of the CFP review the expansion model, which would create two additional rounds and provide greater access for conferences that have been left behind.

It will be very interesting what comes out on Tuesday from the Big 10 and Pac 12 presidents

Yes, just as I suspected. The Presidents will have their say and claim that “academics is more important” than holding an extra few games that conflict with the bowls. That will be the main excuse.

(06-19-2021 08:16 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 07:28 PM)solohawks Wrote:  From the Mercury News article above

Quote:The next step in the transformation of college football’s postseason comes Tuesday, when the university presidents in charge of the CFP review the expansion model, which would create two additional rounds and provide greater access for conferences that have been left behind.

It will be very interesting what comes out on Tuesday from the Big 10 and Pac 12 presidents

Yes, just as I suspected. The Presidents will have their say and claim that “academics is more important” than holding an extra few games that conflict with the bowls. That will be the main excuse.

If the B1G and PAC rejected the 12 team model it will not bother me. The current CFP produces the true national champ every year, and its not worth losing the Rose Bowl to have fluffier playoffs.

But i do expect both to sign on. Too much money to say no.

(06-19-2021 08:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 08:16 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 07:28 PM)solohawks Wrote:  From the Mercury News article above

Quote:The next step in the transformation of college football’s postseason comes Tuesday, when the university presidents in charge of the CFP review the expansion model, which would create two additional rounds and provide greater access for conferences that have been left behind.

It will be very interesting what comes out on Tuesday from the Big 10 and Pac 12 presidents

Yes, just as I suspected. The Presidents will have their say and claim that “academics is more important” than holding an extra few games that conflict with the bowls. That will be the main excuse.

If the B1G and PAC rejected the 12 team model it will not bother me. The current CFP produces the true national champ every year, and its not worth losing the Rose Bowl to have fluffier playoffs.

But i do expect both to sign on. Too much money to say no.

All this reminds me why NFL > College Football....

(06-19-2021 08:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If the B1G and PAC rejected the 12 team model it will not bother me. The current CFP produces the true national champ every year, and its not worth losing the Rose Bowl to have fluffier playoffs.

But i do expect both to sign on. Too much money to say no.

Also, the fact they they make an ambit claim doesn't on it's own mean that the plan is sunk, but it does make it likely that the plan will be amended to mollify them.

It's a lot of money sitting on the table if they have to wait for the renegotiation of the contract to change the system.

But speaking of "too much money", the Rose Bowl would definitely pay more for a greater chance of having the Big Ten and Pac-12 champions in the Rose Bowl than is possible to guarantee under the CFP reform committee proposal.

(06-19-2021 08:52 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 08:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 08:16 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 07:28 PM)solohawks Wrote:  From the Mercury News article above

Quote:The next step in the transformation of college football’s postseason comes Tuesday, when the university presidents in charge of the CFP review the expansion model, which would create two additional rounds and provide greater access for conferences that have been left behind.

It will be very interesting what comes out on Tuesday from the Big 10 and Pac 12 presidents

Yes, just as I suspected. The Presidents will have their say and claim that “academics is more important” than holding an extra few games that conflict with the bowls. That will be the main excuse.

If the B1G and PAC rejected the 12 team model it will not bother me. The current CFP produces the true national champ every year, and its not worth losing the Rose Bowl to have fluffier playoffs.

But i do expect both to sign on. Too much money to say no.

All this reminds me why NFL > College Football....

Not to me. I love both of them, and one reason why is that they are different.

I love the NFL playoffs, but the last thing I want for college football is ... NFL playoffs. Totally different traditions.

Similar to hoops: I love the NBA and NCAA hoops. Glad the NCAA has its big single-elimination tournament while the NBA has its 7-game series.

(06-19-2021 08:52 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 08:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 08:16 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 07:28 PM)solohawks Wrote:  From the Mercury News article above

Quote:The next step in the transformation of college football’s postseason comes Tuesday, when the university presidents in charge of the CFP review the expansion model, which would create two additional rounds and provide greater access for conferences that have been left behind.

It will be very interesting what comes out on Tuesday from the Big 10 and Pac 12 presidents

Yes, just as I suspected. The Presidents will have their say and claim that “academics is more important” than holding an extra few games that conflict with the bowls. That will be the main excuse.

If the B1G and PAC rejected the 12 team model it will not bother me. The current CFP produces the true national champ every year, and its not worth losing the Rose Bowl to have fluffier playoffs.

But i do expect both to sign on. Too much money to say no.

All this reminds me why NFL > College Football....

How about comparing FBS to FCS.

We could have a 24 team field if teams played less games and no CCG.

(06-19-2021 09:37 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 08:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If the B1G and PAC rejected the 12 team model it will not bother me. The current CFP produces the true national champ every year, and its not worth losing the Rose Bowl to have fluffier playoffs.

But i do expect both to sign on. Too much money to say no.

Also, the fact they they make an ambit claim doesn't on it's own mean that the plan is sunk, but it does make it likely that the plan will be amended to mollify them.

It's a lot of money sitting on the table if they have to wait for the renegotiation of the contract to change the system.

But speaking of "too much money", the Rose Bowl would definitely pay more for a greater chance of having the Big Ten and Pac-12 champions in the Rose Bowl than is possible to guarantee under the CFP reform committee proposal.

I agree.

As a compromise to save the 12 team play off and to preserve the Rose bowl tradition, they may come up with some kind of amendment like this: “the seedings for the quarterfinal bowls should satisfy the existing bowl tie ins whenever possible.” In other words, if the Big Ten champ and/or the Pac 12 champ earn a bye, they will be going to the Rose Bowl.

(06-19-2021 10:59 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 09:37 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 08:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If the B1G and PAC rejected the 12 team model it will not bother me. The current CFP produces the true national champ every year, and its not worth losing the Rose Bowl to have fluffier playoffs.

But i do expect both to sign on. Too much money to say no.

Also, the fact they they make an ambit claim doesn't on it's own mean that the plan is sunk, but it does make it likely that the plan will be amended to mollify them.

It's a lot of money sitting on the table if they have to wait for the renegotiation of the contract to change the system.

But speaking of "too much money", the Rose Bowl would definitely pay more for a greater chance of having the Big Ten and Pac-12 champions in the Rose Bowl than is possible to guarantee under the CFP reform committee proposal.

I agree.

As a compromise to save the 12 team play off and to preserve the Rose bowl tradition, they may come up with some kind of amendment like this: “the seedings for the quarterfinal bowls should satisfy the existing bowl tie ins whenever possible.” In other words, if the Big Ten champ and/or the Pac 12 champ earn a bye, they will be going to the Rose Bowl.

Earn a bye? Naah. Rose Bowl Quarterfinal has dibs on any B1G and PAC teams in the Quarterfinals. Why not?
(I don't know if SEC, XII, ACC care enough to make similar desks with / for Orange, Sugar, Cotton / Fiesta)

(06-19-2021 10:59 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 09:37 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  ... But speaking of "too much money", the Rose Bowl would definitely pay more for a greater chance of having the Big Ten and Pac-12 champions in the Rose Bowl than is possible to guarantee under the CFP reform committee proposal.

I agree.

As a compromise to save the 12 team play off and to preserve the Rose bowl tradition, they may come up with some kind of amendment like this: “the seedings for the quarterfinal bowls should satisfy the existing bowl tie ins whenever possible.” In other words, if the Big Ten champ and/or the Pac 12 champ earn a bye, they will be going to the Rose Bowl.

That wouldn't even be an amendment, since they don't specify how the quarterfinals are distributed to NY6 Bowls in the original proposal.

What the PAC-12 wants is a guaranteed spot ... rather than "Top 6", they want "P5 + top non-Contract conference champion". None of this possibility that if the PAC-12 has a really bad season (or has only one really good team which happens to be on postseason ban for how they became so good), the PAC-12 is Champion #7 and left out of the CFP. They are one of the conferences where the guaranteed spot for the champion adds relatively more value to the CCG.

And after that, if they are not in the Top 4 champions, they would rather be in the first round game that has the winner going to the Rose Bowl.

Their first preference would likely be johnbragg's:

(06-20-2021 12:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Earn a bye? Naah. Rose Bowl Quarterfinal has dibs on any B1G and PAC teams in the Quarterfinals. Why not? ...

IOW, have the Big Ten versus the Pac-12 champion in the Rose Bowl if both are in the quarterfinal round, no matter what their seeding, which would mean that when they both have the bye, one of the Quartfinals would feature two first round winners, totally messing up the nice pretty bracket that Notre Dame, the BigXII and the SEC, SEC came up with (and ALSO have a guaranteed CFP spot, messing up the outside shot of two non-Contract Bowl conferences in the CFP that the MWC representative was able to wrangle).

It goes without saying that that is the version that the Rose Bowl would pay the most for, which would then mean that is the version that on average gives the PAC-12 the most Contract Bowl money.

B1G vs PAC is dead with this model. Period. You can’t reseed and make an exception for a 2 vs 4 or 1 vs 5 in a QF game. It throws everything off. At that point, the plus 4 model would work best because you’d take all the traditional tie ins (hell, a 1 vs 2 is possible before the SF) and then reseed 1-4 post NYD bowls. I don’t feel that is viable either because of the calendar crunch.

(06-20-2021 06:26 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  B1G vs PAC is dead with this model. Period. You can’t reseed and make an exception for a 2 vs 4 or 1 vs 5 in a QF game. It throws everything off. ...

Of course it throws everything off ... having a neat bracket is not something the PAC-12 is likely to worry about.

Of course, it would not be necessary to reseed ... the bracket could be built around it. But it would drive the OCD among football fandom nuts.

Indeed, the Big XII and SEC could have a different set of terms on their Bowl contract, the higher ranked hosting the Sugar Bowl, the other champion hosting its own quarterfinal if they have a bye but seeded into the Sugar Bowl bracket if they are in the first round.

And once everyone is trying to angle for the bowl they want, the ACC could have a contract to have their champion host in the Orange Bowl if they have a bye and be bracketed into the Orange Bowl QF if they are in the first round.

I can see people objecting that it turns the bracket into a mess, like a committee started out trying to design a horse and ended up with a camel ... but looking at some of the different cobbled together systems that have been put into place over the years, I hesitate to suggest it is not possible.

(06-19-2021 10:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 08:52 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 08:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 08:16 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 07:28 PM)solohawks Wrote:  From the Mercury News article above

It will be very interesting what comes out on Tuesday from the Big 10 and Pac 12 presidents

Yes, just as I suspected. The Presidents will have their say and claim that “academics is more important” than holding an extra few games that conflict with the bowls. That will be the main excuse.

If the B1G and PAC rejected the 12 team model it will not bother me. The current CFP produces the true national champ every year, and its not worth losing the Rose Bowl to have fluffier playoffs.

But i do expect both to sign on. Too much money to say no.

All this reminds me why NFL > College Football....

Not to me. I love both of them, and one reason why is that they are different.

I love the NFL playoffs, but the last thing I want for college football is ... NFL playoffs. Totally different traditions.

Similar to hoops: I love the NBA and NCAA hoops. Glad the NCAA has its big single-elimination tournament while the NBA has its 7-game series.

Mainly frustrated with the politics of College Athletics that you don’t see as much at the NFL/NBA level.

To me the working group came up with a very good and IMO fair plan based on merit.

Even as a ACC guy now..if the ACC doesn’t have a worthy Champion...they don’t deserve to be in a Playoff. The 6 highest rated Champions keeps the Regular Season Conference races in place and at the same time forces Ppl to watch other leagues. It will make Championship Weekend must watch TV

(06-20-2021 08:44 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 10:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 08:52 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 08:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 08:16 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Yes, just as I suspected. The Presidents will have their say and claim that “academics is more important” than holding an extra few games that conflict with the bowls. That will be the main excuse.

If the B1G and PAC rejected the 12 team model it will not bother me. The current CFP produces the true national champ every year, and its not worth losing the Rose Bowl to have fluffier playoffs.

But i do expect both to sign on. Too much money to say no.

All this reminds me why NFL > College Football....

Not to me. I love both of them, and one reason why is that they are different.

I love the NFL playoffs, but the last thing I want for college football is ... NFL playoffs. Totally different traditions.

Similar to hoops: I love the NBA and NCAA hoops. Glad the NCAA has its big single-elimination tournament while the NBA has its 7-game series.

Mainly frustrated with the politics of College Athletics that you don’t see as much at the NFL/NBA level.

To me the working group came up with a very good and IMO fair plan based on merit.

Even as a ACC guy now..if the ACC doesn’t have a worthy Champion...they don’t deserve to be in a Playoff. The 6 highest rated Champions keeps the Regular Season Conference races in place and at the same time forces Ppl to watch other leagues. It will make Championship Weekend must watch TV

Yeah, I'm OK with this proposed 12 team format. Especially because I feared that 5-1-2 was going to happen, and this is IMO way better than that.

But I'd really be happier just sticking with the CFP. IMO it is the best balance between the traditions and ensuring we always have a truly undisputed champion.

(06-20-2021 10:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 08:44 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 10:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 08:52 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 08:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If the B1G and PAC rejected the 12 team model it will not bother me. The current CFP produces the true national champ every year, and its not worth losing the Rose Bowl to have fluffier playoffs.

But i do expect both to sign on. Too much money to say no.

All this reminds me why NFL > College Football....

Not to me. I love both of them, and one reason why is that they are different.

I love the NFL playoffs, but the last thing I want for college football is ... NFL playoffs. Totally different traditions.

Similar to hoops: I love the NBA and NCAA hoops. Glad the NCAA has its big single-elimination tournament while the NBA has its 7-game series.

Mainly frustrated with the politics of College Athletics that you don’t see as much at the NFL/NBA level.

To me the working group came up with a very good and IMO fair plan based on merit.

Even as a ACC guy now..if the ACC doesn’t have a worthy Champion...they don’t deserve to be in a Playoff. The 6 highest rated Champions keeps the Regular Season Conference races in place and at the same time forces Ppl to watch other leagues. It will make Championship Weekend must watch TV

Yeah, I'm OK with this proposed 12 team format. Especially because I feared that 5-1-2 was going to happen, and this is IMO way better than that.

But I'd really be happier just sticking with the CFP. IMO it is the best balance between the traditions and ensuring we always have a truly undisputed champion.

UCF, 2017 or so National Champions, would like a word here

(06-20-2021 10:12 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 10:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 08:44 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 10:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 08:52 PM)Maize Wrote:  All this reminds me why NFL > College Football....

Not to me. I love both of them, and one reason why is that they are different.

I love the NFL playoffs, but the last thing I want for college football is ... NFL playoffs. Totally different traditions.

Similar to hoops: I love the NBA and NCAA hoops. Glad the NCAA has its big single-elimination tournament while the NBA has its 7-game series.

Mainly frustrated with the politics of College Athletics that you don’t see as much at the NFL/NBA level.

To me the working group came up with a very good and IMO fair plan based on merit.

Even as a ACC guy now..if the ACC doesn’t have a worthy Champion...they don’t deserve to be in a Playoff. The 6 highest rated Champions keeps the Regular Season Conference races in place and at the same time forces Ppl to watch other leagues. It will make Championship Weekend must watch TV

Yeah, I'm OK with this proposed 12 team format. Especially because I feared that 5-1-2 was going to happen, and this is IMO way better than that.

But I'd really be happier just sticking with the CFP. IMO it is the best balance between the traditions and ensuring we always have a truly undisputed champion.

UCF, 2017 or so National Champions, would like a word here

I enjoy at UCF having a word with me. UCF 2017 is no more National Champions than you or I are, or Notre Dame 2012 is or 2016 Alabama is (the UCF-loving Colley-Matrix picked Notre Dame #1 that year even after Alabama beat them in the BCS title game; it also picked Alabama #1 in 2016, after they lost to Clemson in the CFP title game).

The CFP has, every single time, produced a champ that was unanimous with respect to the traditional pre-BCS determination, the Coaches and AP polls. As for computers, you can't expect unanimity. E.g., in 2019, when LSU was the legitimate national champ as much as anyone has ever been the legit champion at anything, there were IIRC about 20 computers out of 100 in the MC that picked someone else. Several had them #3 or even #4. That's meaningless.

And heck, an actual inclusive playoffs wouldn't change that - this past year, Baylor won the NCAA hoops title, but the Massey Composite of computers picked Gonzaga as #1 - *after* the tournament.

The last time there was an actual "split" football title was in 2003, when the AP voted for USC despite LSU winning the official BCS title. Before then, 1997.

The CFP has produced a consensus champ every year, and always will, as it is basically impossible for anyone to merit the title more than a team that beats two of the other four top teams after also having a great regular season.

(06-20-2021 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 10:12 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 10:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 08:44 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 10:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Not to me. I love both of them, and one reason why is that they are different.

I love the NFL playoffs, but the last thing I want for college football is ... NFL playoffs. Totally different traditions.

Similar to hoops: I love the NBA and NCAA hoops. Glad the NCAA has its big single-elimination tournament while the NBA has its 7-game series.

Mainly frustrated with the politics of College Athletics that you don’t see as much at the NFL/NBA level.

To me the working group came up with a very good and IMO fair plan based on merit.

Even as a ACC guy now..if the ACC doesn’t have a worthy Champion...they don’t deserve to be in a Playoff. The 6 highest rated Champions keeps the Regular Season Conference races in place and at the same time forces Ppl to watch other leagues. It will make Championship Weekend must watch TV

Yeah, I'm OK with this proposed 12 team format. Especially because I feared that 5-1-2 was going to happen, and this is IMO way better than that.

But I'd really be happier just sticking with the CFP. IMO it is the best balance between the traditions and ensuring we always have a truly undisputed champion.

UCF, 2017 or so National Champions, would like a word here

I enjoy at UCF having a word with me. UCF 2017 is no more National Champions than you or I are, or Notre Dame 2012 is or 2016 Alabama is (the UCF-loving Colley-Matrix picked Notre Dame #1 that year even after Alabama beat them in the BCS title game; it also picked Alabama #1 in 2016, after they lost to Clemson in the CFP title game).

The CFP has, every single time, produced a champ that was unanimous with respect to the traditional pre-BCS determination, the Coaches and AP polls. As for computers, you can't expect unanimity. E.g., in 2019, when LSU was the legitimate national champ as much as anyone has ever been the legit champion at anything, there were IIRC about 20 computers out of 100 in the MC that picked someone else. Several had them #3 or even #4. That's meaningless.

And heck, an actual inclusive playoffs wouldn't change that - this past year, Baylor won the NCAA hoops title, but the Massey Composite of computers picked Gonzaga as #1 - *after* the tournament.

The last time there was an actual "split" football title was in 2003, when the AP voted for USC despite LSU winning the official BCS title. Before then, 1997.

The CFP has produced a consensus champ every year, and always will, as it is basically impossible for anyone to merit the title more than a team that beats two of the other four top teams after also having a great regular season.

Fair enough. But UCF definitely replicated the "Tulane problem" from the pre or early BCS era.

And having an undefeated team that's not part of the championship picture is definitely a flaw in the system, which 6+6 is going to solve.

(06-20-2021 02:33 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  What the PAC-12 wants is a guaranteed spot ... rather than "Top 6", they want "P5 + top non-Contract conference champion". None of this possibility that if the PAC-12 has a really bad season (or has only one really good team which happens to be on postseason ban for how they became so good), the PAC-12 is Champion #7 and left out of the CFP. They are one of the conferences where the guaranteed spot for the champion adds relatively more value to the CCG.

And after that, if they are not in the Top 4 champions, they would rather be in the first round game that has the winner going to the Rose Bowl.

Their first preference would likely be johnbragg's:

(06-20-2021 12:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Earn a bye? Naah. Rose Bowl Quarterfinal has dibs on any B1G and PAC teams in the Quarterfinals. Why not? ...

IOW, have the Big Ten versus the Pac-12 champion in the Rose Bowl if both are in the quarterfinal round, no matter what their seeding, which would mean that when they both have the bye, one of the Quartfinals would feature two first round winners, totally messing up the nice pretty bracket that Notre Dame, the BigXII and the SEC, SEC came up with (and ALSO have a guaranteed CFP spot, messing up the outside shot of two non-Contract Bowl conferences in the CFP that the MWC representative was able to wrangle).

It goes without saying that that is the version that the Rose Bowl would pay the most for, which would then mean that is the version that on average gives the PAC-12 the most Contract Bowl money.

I think the PAC is more likely to get concessions on the Rose Bowl-B1GvsPAC quarterfinal than on getting a guaranteed spot. The committee said they decided pretty early on on G5 access, and that AQ had picked up a negative odor.

Realistically, the PAC is never going to miss a 6+6 playoff. 2020 doesn't count. So there's no money at stake there, and the PAC will have no backup on that point.

The Rose Bowl tradition, on the other hand, IS monetizable. So the PAC will have Big Ten backup, plus whatever stroke the Rose Bowl has as current CFP contract partners.

(The Fiesta and Peach Bowls, on the other hand, have no reason at all to cooperate with the new system.)

(06-20-2021 06:26 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  B1G vs PAC is dead with this model. Period. You can’t reseed and make an exception for a 2 vs 4 or 1 vs 5 in a QF game.

Sure you can. They're already making an "exception" when a non-conference-champion is in the top 4.

Quote:It throws everything off.

So call a waaaahmbulance. Oh, wait, better not, because the purity of the bracket doesn't generate any revenue, so you can't afford the waaahmbulance ride.

Quote:At that point, the plus 4 model would work best because you’d take all the traditional tie ins (hell, a 1 vs 2 is possible before the SF) and then reseed 1-4 post NYD bowls. I don’t feel that is viable either because of the calendar crunch.

That would have been a viable model, but I don't think you get the 12-team-playoff genie back in the bottle. (I strongly suspect that you're getting 12 because they can't put the "12 teams get to go to major/ NY6 bowls" genie back in the bottle)

(06-20-2021 06:39 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 06:26 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  B1G vs PAC is dead with this model. Period. You can’t reseed and make an exception for a 2 vs 4 or 1 vs 5 in a QF game. It throws everything off. ...

Of course it throws everything off ... having a neat bracket is not something the PAC-12 is likely to worry about.

Of course, it would not be necessary to reseed ... the bracket could be built around it. But it would drive the OCD among football fandom nuts.

Indeed, the Big XII and SEC could have a different set of terms on their Bowl contract, the higher ranked hosting the Sugar Bowl, the other champion hosting its own quarterfinal if they have a bye but seeded into the Sugar Bowl bracket if they are in the first round.

And once everyone is trying to angle for the bowl they want, the ACC could have a contract to have their champion host in the Orange Bowl if they have a bye and be bracketed into the Orange Bowl QF if they are in the first round.

I can see people objecting that it turns the bracket into a mess, like a committee started out trying to design a horse and ended up with a camel ... but looking at some of the different cobbled together systems that have been put into place over the years, I hesitate to suggest it is not possible.

It's not even that difficult. If you decide that seeding the bracket is less important than the P5 conferences getting paid for major bowl ties, then it's quite easy.

Rose Bowl pays the B1G and PAC, gets priority on B1G and PAC teams in the quarterfinals. (Maybe dibs on champions only, maybe dibs on any available team from that league).
Sugar Bowl pays the SEC, Cotton Bowl pays the Big 12, Orange Bowl pays the ACC.
And, in my little fan fiction here, the commitee has leeway to flip teams in the seedings to avoid rematches where possible, or at least delay them into later rounds.

Lets see how this plays out using some past seasons, CFP rankings.
2019, since 2020 doesn't count
4 top champions: Ohio State, LSU, Oklahoma, Clemson
5-12 Georgia, Oregon, Baylor, Wisconsin, Florida, Penn State, Utah, Memphis (#17)
Committee flips Utah and Penn State to avoid an Oregon-Utah first round game.
If Oregon beats Penn State, they go to the Rose Bowl.
If Oregon loses, and Utah beats Baylor, Utah goes to the Rose Bowl.
If Oregon and UTah both lose in the first round, then the Rose Bowl gets whoever.
(Georgia and Florida do NOT go to the Sugar Bowl.)

2018. 4 top champions: Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma, Ohio State (#5)
5-12: Notre Dame (#4), Georgia, Michigan, UCF©, Washington©, FLorida, LSU, Penn State.
Rose Bowl gets Ohio State, and Washington if they beat UCF.
(Note: Georgia-LSU in the first round, and Alabama-Florida in the Sugar Bowl, would not be rematches. For what it's worth)

2017. 1-4 Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia, Ohio State(#5)
5-12. Alabama (#4), Wisconsin, Auburn, USC ©, Penn State, Miami, Washington, UCF (#12)
Rose Bowl gets Ohio STate and either USC (if they beat Penn State), or Washington (if USC loses and Washington beats Wisconsin), or they get an at-large.

2016. Here's the year it gets wild and hairy.
EDIT: It gets very hairy--this is the year that OSU went to the playoff without playing in the Big Ten CCG

1-4. Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Washington.
5-12. Penn State, Michigan, Oklahoma ©, Wisconsin, USC, Colorado, FSU, Western Michigan ©

So the Rose Bowl is [s]Ohio State Penn State[b] vs Washington, champion vs champion.
Sugar gets Alabama, Orange gets Clemson.
Then we look at the first round games.
WMU @ [b]Ohio STate, FSU @ Michigan, Colorado @ Oklahoma, USC @ Wisconsin.
If Oklahoma wins, they go to the Cotton Bowl.
If Oklahoma loses, the Cotton Bowl doesn't get a Big 12 team this year.

Actually, it's not the end of the world at all.

There's plenty of leeway in the system to make concessions to the Big Ten-PAC-12 Rose Bowl coalition, IMO.

(06-20-2021 11:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 10:12 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 10:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 08:44 AM)Maize Wrote:  Mainly frustrated with the politics of College Athletics that you don’t see as much at the NFL/NBA level.

To me the working group came up with a very good and IMO fair plan based on merit.

Even as a ACC guy now..if the ACC doesn’t have a worthy Champion...they don’t deserve to be in a Playoff. The 6 highest rated Champions keeps the Regular Season Conference races in place and at the same time forces Ppl to watch other leagues. It will make Championship Weekend must watch TV

Yeah, I'm OK with this proposed 12 team format. Especially because I feared that 5-1-2 was going to happen, and this is IMO way better than that.

But I'd really be happier just sticking with the CFP. IMO it is the best balance between the traditions and ensuring we always have a truly undisputed champion.

UCF, 2017 or so National Champions, would like a word here

I enjoy at UCF having a word with me. UCF 2017 is no more National Champions than you or I are, or Notre Dame 2012 is or 2016 Alabama is (the UCF-loving Colley-Matrix picked Notre Dame #1 that year even after Alabama beat them in the BCS title game; it also picked Alabama #1 in 2016, after they lost to Clemson in the CFP title game).

The CFP has, every single time, produced a champ that was unanimous with respect to the traditional pre-BCS determination, the Coaches and AP polls. As for computers, you can't expect unanimity. E.g., in 2019, when LSU was the legitimate national champ as much as anyone has ever been the legit champion at anything, there were IIRC about 20 computers out of 100 in the MC that picked someone else. Several had them #3 or even #4. That's meaningless.

And heck, an actual inclusive playoffs wouldn't change that - this past year, Baylor won the NCAA hoops title, but the Massey Composite of computers picked Gonzaga as #1 - *after* the tournament.

The last time there was an actual "split" football title was in 2003, when the AP voted for USC despite LSU winning the official BCS title. Before then, 1997.

The CFP has produced a consensus champ every year, and always will, as it is basically impossible for anyone to merit the title more than a team that beats two of the other four top teams after also having a great regular season.

Fair enough. But UCF definitely replicated the "Tulane problem" from the pre or early BCS era.

And having an undefeated team that's not part of the championship picture is definitely a flaw in the system, which 6+6 is going to solve.

Well, I think there is definitely a chance that we could have an unbeaten team left out. I suspect that had the PAC had a full season, its champ would have been in the top 12 and Coastal Carolina would not have been.

If we have two unbeaten G5 champs, I think there's a good chance one will get left out. We could even have that if there is only one unbeaten G5 champ. E.g., imagine if in 2016 the AAC champ had had one loss. They might have been ranked #13 or so. In that case, I think unbeaten MAC champ WMU, who finished #15 in the CFP, gets left out.

That doesn't bother me, btw. I don't put any special stock in "unbeaten". Lots of teams can go unbeaten playing a soft schedule.

Just MO.