(08-22-2021 05:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 01:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 12:07 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 11:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 10:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  My answer is OT because I realize the premise is "if" we go to an 8-team playoff, but ....

I don't see any way 8 teams is chosen over 12 teams. The B1G, despite the Alliance, still has no interest in getting in essentially the same number of playoff teams as the ACC and PAC - much less a now rump L8 and AAC. And of course the SEC has no interest in this either. This would IMO have the effect of greatly leveling-out the power differences among the P-conferences, help rescue the L8 and even elevate the AAC to near-P6 status. The B1G and SEC do not want that, IMO.

But sticking with your premise, the only way I see the SEC even considering signing on to an 8-team model would be either a straight-8 format, or possibly under a 4-4 regime, with four spots reserved for the top 4 conference champs, and 4 at large bids.

Actually—an 8 team playoff proposal is EXACTLY the kind of thing you might see from the Big10 and it’s Alliance membership. The Alliance believes strongly in the current academics based student athlete collegiate model and are against moves toward professionalism in college sports. The 17 game season teams participating in the national championship game (assuming the current 12 team proposal is up for a vote) is a real concern for those Alliance members. I could see them pushing for a simpler 8 team model that carves a game off that 17 game NCG participant total.

Agree. IMO, the UT/OU expansion was such a game-changing move that the 12 team CFP proposal will be re-thought by the Alliance. Playing 17 games will be portrayed as a hypocritical money grab that is not in the best interests of student-athletes. The SEC champ, Ohio State, Clemson and Oklahoma will all be happy allowing the current format to continue. The major fights will be on NIL, NCAA governance and helping student-athletes.

Eventually, the CFP will expand to 8 teams. The expansion will have 6 conference champs (including autobids for the top 4 conferences) + 2 at large selections. The SEC will then be pissed, but the Alliance will try to make college-athletics more about student-athletes.

I agree that if the Alliance comes out against 12 teams, then the current CFP will continue.

I do not ever see a time when we get an 8-team playoff with just two at-large spots. The SEC and B1G will not go along with it, Notre Dame will not either, IMO.

A single conference can block right now because any change is a alteration of an existing contract and requires every party to agree. In a new contract, it will be more of a majority rules situation--so the SEC wont win every single battle over every single issue. That said---the SEC could hold out and I doubt any playoff can go forward without SEC participation---but then the Big10/Pac12/ACC could do the same on the SEC's 12 team proposal. So--in the end--there will have to be some give and take among all parties on the CFP issues of total playoff size and "at large" pool size.

No question, nobody can enforce their views in a totalitarian way. We saw back in the 1990s, when the first "Bowl Alliances" were formed, that without participation by all the major players it was kind of a pointless exercise. The BCS brought everyone under the same umbrella and that made the whole thing a lot more legitimate and thus lucrative.

That said, while every conference will have to have some flexibility, that doesn't mean everyone will go for anything. I think the SEC will go for either a 12-team playoff of the kind under review right now, basically 6+6 or with the demotion of the L8, 5+7, or sticking with the current 4-team CFP. I could also see them going for an 8-team playoff if it is straight 8 or at most, 4+4. IOWs, just as say the G5 likely have a bottom line with a format that gives them a guaranteed spot, the SEC will have a bottom line of at least four at-large bids, whether the number is straight 4 (like the current CFP) or in an 8 or 12 team model.

If that is their bottom line, which let's face it, every conference has one, I bet some kind of deal can be made at either 8 or 12 teams among those options.

(08-22-2021 04:25 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 01:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 12:07 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 11:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 10:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  My answer is OT because I realize the premise is "if" we go to an 8-team playoff, but ....

I don't see any way 8 teams is chosen over 12 teams. The B1G, despite the Alliance, still has no interest in getting in essentially the same number of playoff teams as the ACC and PAC - much less a now rump L8 and AAC. And of course the SEC has no interest in this either. This would IMO have the effect of greatly leveling-out the power differences among the P-conferences, help rescue the L8 and even elevate the AAC to near-P6 status. The B1G and SEC do not want that, IMO.

But sticking with your premise, the only way I see the SEC even considering signing on to an 8-team model would be either a straight-8 format, or possibly under a 4-4 regime, with four spots reserved for the top 4 conference champs, and 4 at large bids.

Actually—an 8 team playoff proposal is EXACTLY the kind of thing you might see from the Big10 and it’s Alliance membership. The Alliance believes strongly in the current academics based student athlete collegiate model and are against moves toward professionalism in college sports. The 17 game season teams participating in the national championship game (assuming the current 12 team proposal is up for a vote) is a real concern for those Alliance members. I could see them pushing for a simpler 8 team model that carves a game off that 17 game NCG participant total.

Agree. IMO, the UT/OU expansion was such a game-changing move that the 12 team CFP proposal will be re-thought by the Alliance. Playing 17 games will be portrayed as a hypocritical money grab that is not in the best interests of student-athletes. The SEC champ, Ohio State, Clemson and Oklahoma will all be happy allowing the current format to continue. The major fights will be on NIL, NCAA governance and helping student-athletes.

Eventually, the CFP will expand to 8 teams. The expansion will have 6 conference champs (including autobids for the top 4 conferences) + 2 at large selections. The SEC will then be pissed, but the Alliance will try to make college-athletics more about student-athletes.

I agree that if the Alliance comes out against 12 teams, then the current CFP will continue.

I do not ever see a time when we get an 8-team playoff with just two at-large spots. The SEC and B1G will not go along with it, Notre Dame will not either, IMO.

I agree with this. If an 8 team playoff is going to be viable to the SEC and the B1G, 4 conference champ's and 4 wild cards is the minimum they would agree to.

And nobody else is going to find 4/4 acceptable.

There's a logic to the 6/6. The NCAA has a rule that only 50% of participants in their tourneys are for automatic qualifiers (conference champs). And 6 meant the A5 would get in 107 out of 115 times since the BCS era began. And that was with the Big East in existence and Texas and OU in the Big 12. The SEC and Big 12 would have made it every year. The only years the Big 10 missed were when Ohio St. was on probation and when the champ was lower ranked than the runnerup, who would have made the field. The only years the Pac missed were 2020 Covid and 1999. Its only the ACC who missed much and those years were with the Big East in place.

(08-22-2021 05:38 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 04:25 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 01:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 12:07 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 11:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Actually—an 8 team playoff proposal is EXACTLY the kind of thing you might see from the Big10 and it’s Alliance membership. The Alliance believes strongly in the current academics based student athlete collegiate model and are against moves toward professionalism in college sports. The 17 game season teams participating in the national championship game (assuming the current 12 team proposal is up for a vote) is a real concern for those Alliance members. I could see them pushing for a simpler 8 team model that carves a game off that 17 game NCG participant total.

Agree. IMO, the UT/OU expansion was such a game-changing move that the 12 team CFP proposal will be re-thought by the Alliance. Playing 17 games will be portrayed as a hypocritical money grab that is not in the best interests of student-athletes. The SEC champ, Ohio State, Clemson and Oklahoma will all be happy allowing the current format to continue. The major fights will be on NIL, NCAA governance and helping student-athletes.

Eventually, the CFP will expand to 8 teams. The expansion will have 6 conference champs (including autobids for the top 4 conferences) + 2 at large selections. The SEC will then be pissed, but the Alliance will try to make college-athletics more about student-athletes.

I agree that if the Alliance comes out against 12 teams, then the current CFP will continue.

I do not ever see a time when we get an 8-team playoff with just two at-large spots. The SEC and B1G will not go along with it, Notre Dame will not either, IMO.

I agree with this. If an 8 team playoff is going to be viable to the SEC and the B1G, 4 conference champ's and 4 wild cards is the minimum they would agree to.

Then what about G6? They have zero voting power? Don’t forget the magic word: EQUITY.

IMO, that's why 12 teams is the likely outcome - the G6 can have their guaranteed spot (by making it either 6+6 or 5+7) and the SEC/B1G can have many at-large spots.

An 8-team format makes it hard to reconcile those two demands.

(08-23-2021 08:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 04:25 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 01:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 12:07 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 11:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Actually—an 8 team playoff proposal is EXACTLY the kind of thing you might see from the Big10 and it’s Alliance membership. The Alliance believes strongly in the current academics based student athlete collegiate model and are against moves toward professionalism in college sports. The 17 game season teams participating in the national championship game (assuming the current 12 team proposal is up for a vote) is a real concern for those Alliance members. I could see them pushing for a simpler 8 team model that carves a game off that 17 game NCG participant total.

Agree. IMO, the UT/OU expansion was such a game-changing move that the 12 team CFP proposal will be re-thought by the Alliance. Playing 17 games will be portrayed as a hypocritical money grab that is not in the best interests of student-athletes. The SEC champ, Ohio State, Clemson and Oklahoma will all be happy allowing the current format to continue. The major fights will be on NIL, NCAA governance and helping student-athletes.

Eventually, the CFP will expand to 8 teams. The expansion will have 6 conference champs (including autobids for the top 4 conferences) + 2 at large selections. The SEC will then be pissed, but the Alliance will try to make college-athletics more about student-athletes.

I agree that if the Alliance comes out against 12 teams, then the current CFP will continue.

I do not ever see a time when we get an 8-team playoff with just two at-large spots. The SEC and B1G will not go along with it, Notre Dame will not either, IMO.

I agree with this. If an 8 team playoff is going to be viable to the SEC and the B1G, 4 conference champ's and 4 wild cards is the minimum they would agree to.

And nobody else is going to find 4/4 acceptable.

There's a logic to the 6/6. The NCAA has a rule that only 50% of participants in their tourneys are for automatic qualifiers (conference champs). And 6 meant the A5 would get in 107 out of 115 times since the BCS era began. And that was with the Big East in existence and Texas and OU in the Big 12. The SEC and Big 12 would have made it every year. The only years the Big 10 missed were when Ohio St. was on probation and when the champ was lower ranked than the runnerup, who would have made the field. The only years the Pac missed were 2020 Covid and 1999. Its only the ACC who missed much and those years were with the Big East in place.

Does everybody have to find it acceptable for it to happen? If the P4 conferences and Notre Dame all agree on some form of an 8 team playoff with four autobids, does it matter if the G6 don't like it? What's to stop the P4 from doing it anyway? Is the NCAA going to kick them out? Or withhold "permission" and NCAAT revenue distributions to them to prevent it? The NCAA needs them more than they need the NCAA.

I don't rule out going to CFP8 as an intermediate step toward a CFP12. As JR points out from time to time, every playoff expansion extracts more money from the payers (ESPN, FOX, et al). Going directly from 4 to 12 leaves money on the table because it eliminates one expansion move.

(08-23-2021 08:58 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-23-2021 08:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 04:25 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 01:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 12:07 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Agree. IMO, the UT/OU expansion was such a game-changing move that the 12 team CFP proposal will be re-thought by the Alliance. Playing 17 games will be portrayed as a hypocritical money grab that is not in the best interests of student-athletes. The SEC champ, Ohio State, Clemson and Oklahoma will all be happy allowing the current format to continue. The major fights will be on NIL, NCAA governance and helping student-athletes.

Eventually, the CFP will expand to 8 teams. The expansion will have 6 conference champs (including autobids for the top 4 conferences) + 2 at large selections. The SEC will then be pissed, but the Alliance will try to make college-athletics more about student-athletes.

I agree that if the Alliance comes out against 12 teams, then the current CFP will continue.

I do not ever see a time when we get an 8-team playoff with just two at-large spots. The SEC and B1G will not go along with it, Notre Dame will not either, IMO.

I agree with this. If an 8 team playoff is going to be viable to the SEC and the B1G, 4 conference champ's and 4 wild cards is the minimum they would agree to.

And nobody else is going to find 4/4 acceptable.

There's a logic to the 6/6. The NCAA has a rule that only 50% of participants in their tourneys are for automatic qualifiers (conference champs). And 6 meant the A5 would get in 107 out of 115 times since the BCS era began. And that was with the Big East in existence and Texas and OU in the Big 12. The SEC and Big 12 would have made it every year. The only years the Big 10 missed were when Ohio St. was on probation and when the champ was lower ranked than the runnerup, who would have made the field. The only years the Pac missed were 2020 Covid and 1999. Its only the ACC who missed much and those years were with the Big East in place.

Does everybody have to find it acceptable for it to happen? If the P4 conferences and Notre Dame all agree on some form of an 8 team playoff with four autobids, does it matter if the G6 don't like it? What's to stop the P4 from doing it anyway? Is the NCAA going to kick them out? Or withhold "permission" and NCAAT revenue distributions to them to prevent it? The NCAA needs them more than they need the NCAA.

My answer to that question would be "no, at that point, it doesn't matter if the G6 like it or not".

(08-23-2021 08:58 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-23-2021 08:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 04:25 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 01:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 12:07 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Agree. IMO, the UT/OU expansion was such a game-changing move that the 12 team CFP proposal will be re-thought by the Alliance. Playing 17 games will be portrayed as a hypocritical money grab that is not in the best interests of student-athletes. The SEC champ, Ohio State, Clemson and Oklahoma will all be happy allowing the current format to continue. The major fights will be on NIL, NCAA governance and helping student-athletes.

Eventually, the CFP will expand to 8 teams. The expansion will have 6 conference champs (including autobids for the top 4 conferences) + 2 at large selections. The SEC will then be pissed, but the Alliance will try to make college-athletics more about student-athletes.

I agree that if the Alliance comes out against 12 teams, then the current CFP will continue.

I do not ever see a time when we get an 8-team playoff with just two at-large spots. The SEC and B1G will not go along with it, Notre Dame will not either, IMO.

I agree with this. If an 8 team playoff is going to be viable to the SEC and the B1G, 4 conference champ's and 4 wild cards is the minimum they would agree to.

And nobody else is going to find 4/4 acceptable.

There's a logic to the 6/6. The NCAA has a rule that only 50% of participants in their tourneys are for automatic qualifiers (conference champs). And 6 meant the A5 would get in 107 out of 115 times since the BCS era began. And that was with the Big East in existence and Texas and OU in the Big 12. The SEC and Big 12 would have made it every year. The only years the Big 10 missed were when Ohio St. was on probation and when the champ was lower ranked than the runnerup, who would have made the field. The only years the Pac missed were 2020 Covid and 1999. Its only the ACC who missed much and those years were with the Big East in place.

Does everybody have to find it acceptable for it to happen? If the P4 conferences and Notre Dame all agree on some form of an 8 team playoff with four autobids, does it matter if the G6 don't like it? What's to stop the P4 from doing it anyway? Is the NCAA going to kick them out? Or withhold "permission" and NCAAT revenue distributions to them to prevent it? The NCAA needs them more than they need the NCAA.

It needs to be unanimous to change in the next 5 years. And anything other than 6/6 won't even get a majority.

(08-23-2021 12:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-23-2021 08:58 AM)ken d Wrote:  Does everybody have to find it acceptable for it to happen? If the P4 conferences and Notre Dame all agree on some form of an 8 team playoff with four autobids, does it matter if the G6 don't like it? What's to stop the P4 from doing it anyway? Is the NCAA going to kick them out? Or withhold "permission" and NCAAT revenue distributions to them to prevent it? The NCAA needs them more than they need the NCAA.

It needs to be unanimous to change in the next 5 years. And anything other than 6/6 won't even get a majority.

I could see 6 teams getting some love before 2026, top 2 champs get byes. Bowls (the main barrier to immediate change) keep their current semifinal cycle and conferences get a little more money. SEC/B1G more likely to have the #13 and #14 teams who replace the play-in losers in the NY6. Maybe Champ #3 and #4 (AAC has a shot!) get to host the play-ins.

If they want something done <5 years, who votes no?

(08-23-2021 01:44 PM)Crayton Wrote:  If they want something done <5 years, who votes no?

If the Rose has an issue, PAC and B1G.

You can have 10 teams and 2 play-in games. 7 vs 10 and 8 vs 9. However, 7-10 would feature the top 4 ranked At-Large teams including ND on campus sites. This way, teams already playing in a CCG don't have to play an extra game. Then guarantee top 6 conference champions no matter where they fall in the final CFP rankings. But At-Large would be penalized by playing another game. 5th ranked At-Large would be out no matter how high they are ranked.

(08-23-2021 02:26 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(08-23-2021 01:44 PM)Crayton Wrote:  If they want something done <5 years, who votes no?

If the Rose has an issue, PAC and B1G.

Agreed, but...

The Rose hosts a semifinal in January 2024 and next best Big Ten and Pac-12 teams in 2025 and 2026. If that does not change (in the posted 6-team scenario), what issue could the Rose voice?

EDIT: okay, I guess there are differences...
2019, #6 Oregon would go to a play-in while #11 Utah would go to the Rose
2018, #6 Ohio State would go to a play-in while #7 Michigan would go to the Rose
2017, Rose would actually have a shot at hosting a contract team #5 OSU or #6 UW
2016, #5 Penn State would go to a play-in while #8 Wisconsin would go to the Rose
2015, #5 Iowa and #6 Stanford would both go to a play-in; the Rose gets #7 Ohio State and #15 Oregon
2014, no change

A slight negative direction overall, for the Rose. They'd definitely prefer an annual Quarterfinal.

(08-23-2021 02:31 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  You can have 10 teams and 2 play-in games. 7 vs 10 and 8 vs 9. However, 7-10 would feature the top 4 ranked At-Large teams including ND on campus sites. This way, teams already playing in a CCG don't have to play an extra game. Then guarantee top 6 conference champions no matter where they fall in the final CFP rankings. But At-Large would be penalized by playing another game. 5th ranked At-Large would be out no matter how high they are ranked.

I like the basics. The fly in the ointment here is what happens if #1 loses their CCG? Say #1 Alabama is playing #2 Florida, as in 2008 and 2009? Does the loser (ranked, say, #4) not make the quarterfinals?

Right now, that would probably be an unacceptable outcome, so the modification I commonly make to your proposal is to drop from 2 to just 1 play-in and leave that 8th spot as a true "at large" spot. Most years that spot will go to a CCG loser, but occassionally a team with only 12 games will make the quarterfinals.

(08-23-2021 03:19 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(08-23-2021 02:31 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  You can have 10 teams and 2 play-in games. 7 vs 10 and 8 vs 9. However, 7-10 would feature the top 4 ranked At-Large teams including ND on campus sites. This way, teams already playing in a CCG don't have to play an extra game. Then guarantee top 6 conference champions no matter where they fall in the final CFP rankings. But At-Large would be penalized by playing another game. 5th ranked At-Large would be out no matter how high they are ranked.

I like the basics. The fly in the ointment here is what happens if #1 loses their CCG? Say #1 Alabama is playing #2 Florida, as in 2008 and 2009? Does the loser (ranked, say, #4) not make the quarterfinals?

Right now, that would probably be an unacceptable outcome, so the modification I commonly make to your proposal is to drop from 2 to just 1 play-in and leave that 8th spot as a true "at large" spot. Most years that spot will go to a CCG loser, but occassionally a team with only 12 games will make the quarterfinals.

Yeah, I think you've exposed a major issue with that proposal. Giving a bye to 6 conference champs in 10 team playoff would be a non-starter, they are only proposing the 4 highest ranked conference champs would get byes in the 12 team proposal. Think about this hypothetical (post OU and Texas to the SEC): Auburn and Alabama are both 11-0 going into the Iron Bowl. Alabama (having already beaten Oklahoma) beats Auburn and then faces an 11-1 Georgia, whose only loss is to Auburn. Georgia then beats Alabama. The final pre-playoff rankings shake out like this:
1. Ohio State (13-0, B1G Champ)
2. Clemson (13-0, ACC Champ)
3. Georgia (12-1 SEC Champ)
4. ND (12-0, Indy)
5. Alabama (12-1, SEC runner-up)
6. Auburn (11-1)
7. Oklahoma (11-1)
8. Penn State (11-1)
9. Oregon (11-2, Pac-12 Champ)
10. Oklahoma State (11-2, Big XII Champ)
...
14. Cincy (13-0, AAC Champ)

I can't see how you could justify putting teams ranked elevating the 9th, 10th and 14th ranked teams ahead of an undefeated ND and four 1-loss P5 teams simply because they won their conferences. Likewise, in my hypothetical, if you did that, you end up with an ND-Oklahoma and Iron Bowl rematch in the 7-10/8-9 games, and the SEC would still get 4 teams in the playoff.

Similarly, if we used the actual final pre-bowl playoff rankings from last year, you'd end up with 1. Alabama; 2. Clemson; 3. Ohio State; 4. Oklahoma (upjumped from #6); 5. Cincy (upjumped from #8); 6. Coastal (upjumped from #12); 7. ND; 8. A&M; 9. Florida; 10. Georgia, so you'd have gotten a ND-Georgia 7-10 game and an all-SEC 8-9 game. That doesn't seem particularly palatable either.

I had forgotten about the upset in Championship game scenario. The play-in game would be the top two At Large teams get slotted the same weekend as CCG so ND would be forced to play another game as would OSU or Bama losing the division with one loss but still ranked high enough for a top 8 or so.

So you get all P5s (after L8 expands), a G5, and 2 At Large.

1 At Large reserved for top two Non-CCG participants including Indys. 1 At Large for top CCG runner up.

So UGa or Wisconsin losing their CCG would still have a fall back but would not control their own destiny.

3rd ranked At-Large that does not already play in a CCG is automatically out.

Its going to 12, the Big Ten wants 12 for more at large bids to get, the Pac wants 6+6 to pretty much guarantee it's champ gets in. It's going to happen, if it's before or after the current contract expires it wont matter.

(08-23-2021 05:18 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I had forgotten about the upset in Championship game scenario. The play-in game would be the top two At Large teams get slotted the same weekend as CCG so ND would be forced to play another game as would OSU or Bama losing the division with one loss but still ranked high enough for a top 8 or so.

So you get all P5s (after L8 expands), a G5, and 2 At Large.

1 At Large reserved for top two Non-CCG participants including Indys. 1 At Large for top CCG runner up.

So UGa or Wisconsin losing their CCG would still have a fall back but would not control their own destiny.

3rd ranked At-Large that does not already play in a CCG is automatically out.

There is a thread where I go through this exact scenario over the last decade or so (prettier version here, with the unusual choice of pre-CCG seeding so CCGs have specific bowl-stakes).

I added a quirky rule where if a team already lost to the #1 At Large, they couldn't rematch them again in the play-in. In 2016, this meant #2 Ohio State played #11 USC while #6 Michigan sat home. But, Michigan was still ranked high enough that they were likely to get the true at large (unless #1 Alabama or #2 Ohio State lost).

(08-23-2021 05:40 PM)BigEastMike Wrote:  Its going to 12, the Big Ten wants 12 for more at large bids to get, the Pac wants 6+6 to pretty much guarantee it's champ gets in. It's going to happen, if it's before or after the current contract expires it wont matter.

If it goes to 12 the season will have to be extended, or they will have to cram an insane number of weekends over finals and Holidays.

The scenario I’m more interested in would be to minimize that extra weekend post NYD by cutting the field down to 8 post CCG weekend and playing that QF one weekend later. I think this is what the B1G and PAC envision (my own speculation) thus keeping the Rose as a rotating SF on NYD.

(08-23-2021 06:37 PM)Crayton Wrote:  There is a thread where I go through this exact scenario over the last decade or so (prettier version here, with the unusual choice of pre-CCG seeding so CCGs have specific bowl-stakes).

I added a quirky rule where if a team already lost to the #1 At Large, they couldn't rematch them again in the play-in. In 2016, this meant #2 Ohio State played #11 USC while #6 Michigan sat home. But, Michigan was still ranked high enough that they were likely to get the true at large (unless #1 Alabama or #2 Ohio State lost).

I don’t know if avoiding a rematch here is crucial considering you’d rarely have two At-Large teams from the same division (I think the one year where TTech UT OU 3-way tied prior to the 4 team CFP is the exception).

Even if by some coincidence it’s a rematch, say ND Michigan or ND USC, you’d still have the higher ranked team at home.

But CCG upsets are a tricky thing. You don’t want it to all come down to one game, only to reward a 3 loss team that happens to pull a fluke upset in their CCG over a 12-0 team that had an off night. Therefore a spot should be reserved for the “best loser”, while the play-in game would have a school (or ND) play their way in.

(08-23-2021 04:06 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(08-23-2021 03:19 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(08-23-2021 02:31 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  You can have 10 teams and 2 play-in games. 7 vs 10 and 8 vs 9. However, 7-10 would feature the top 4 ranked At-Large teams including ND on campus sites. This way, teams already playing in a CCG don't have to play an extra game. Then guarantee top 6 conference champions no matter where they fall in the final CFP rankings. But At-Large would be penalized by playing another game. 5th ranked At-Large would be out no matter how high they are ranked.

I like the basics. The fly in the ointment here is what happens if #1 loses their CCG? Say #1 Alabama is playing #2 Florida, as in 2008 and 2009? Does the loser (ranked, say, #4) not make the quarterfinals?

Right now, that would probably be an unacceptable outcome, so the modification I commonly make to your proposal is to drop from 2 to just 1 play-in and leave that 8th spot as a true "at large" spot. Most years that spot will go to a CCG loser, but occassionally a team with only 12 games will make the quarterfinals.

Yeah, I think you've exposed a major issue with that proposal. Giving a bye to 6 conference champs in 10 team playoff would be a non-starter, they are only proposing the 4 highest ranked conference champs would get byes in the 12 team proposal. Think about this hypothetical (post OU and Texas to the SEC): Auburn and Alabama are both 11-0 going into the Iron Bowl. Alabama (having already beaten Oklahoma) beats Auburn and then faces an 11-1 Georgia, whose only loss is to Auburn. Georgia then beats Alabama. The final pre-playoff rankings shake out like this:
1. Ohio State (13-0, B1G Champ)
2. Clemson (13-0, ACC Champ)
3. Georgia (12-1 SEC Champ)
4. ND (12-0, Indy)
5. Alabama (12-1, SEC runner-up)
6. Auburn (11-1)
7. Oklahoma (11-1)
8. Penn State (11-1)
9. Oregon (11-2, Pac-12 Champ)
10. Oklahoma State (11-2, Big XII Champ)
...
14. Cincy (13-0, AAC Champ)

I can't see how you could justify putting teams ranked elevating the 9th, 10th and 14th ranked teams ahead of an undefeated ND and four 1-loss P5 teams simply because they won their conferences. Likewise, in my hypothetical, if you did that, you end up with an ND-Oklahoma and Iron Bowl rematch in the 7-10/8-9 games, and the SEC would still get 4 teams in the playoff.

Similarly, if we used the actual final pre-bowl playoff rankings from last year, you'd end up with 1. Alabama; 2. Clemson; 3. Ohio State; 4. Oklahoma (upjumped from #6); 5. Cincy (upjumped from #8); 6. Coastal (upjumped from #12); 7. ND; 8. A&M; 9. Florida; 10. Georgia, so you'd have gotten a ND-Georgia 7-10 game and an all-SEC 8-9 game. That doesn't seem particularly palatable either.

I can. Those teams won something. The others have to play in to earn their mulligan.

There are really no byes either… everyone has to play on CCG weekend if they want a seat. It is really a travesty having a 11-1 OSU or Bama backdoor a CFP bid as an AT-Large. I honestly think that was the rationale for 12 team proposal (Sankey probably felt the same about his own division runner ups when drawing that one up).

So I think some play in scenario is inevitable. What the real hang up is is playing that extra round on what’s now Army Navy Heisman weekend, although it could be more palatable than an additional two weeks post NYD. And it doesn’t devalue the existing NY6 bowls to QFs at any point in the new cycle.

Otherwise, just make CCG weekend the start of the playoff. If you lose as a 12-0, you are out, and 10-3 or 9-4 is in. I don’t know, it’s possible they do just that.