https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...team-field

Pac says they favor all 6 models. Everyone else opposes at least one.

"...The league's statement is the first to publicly detail the six models the commissioners have considered, including three variations of an eight-team format:

• Qualification for the best 12 teams;

• Automatic qualifications (AQs) for the six highest-ranked conference champions and six at-large bids, which was the original June proposal;

• AQs for the Power 5 conferences and one AQ for the highest-ranked Group of Five champion, along with six at-large bids ("5+1+6");

• Qualification for the best eight teams;

• AQs for the six highest-ranked conference champions and two at-large bids ("6+2");

• AQs for the Autonomy Five conferences and one AQ for the highest-ranked Group of Five champion, along with two at-large bids ("5+1+2").

"It is clear none of the six most-discussed expansion models has unanimous consent, with most having considerable opposition, and every conference other than the Pac-12 has indicated that they would be against at least one of the proposed models," the statement read. "If all 11 CFP members are unable to agree unanimously on a new format, then no expansion can occur in the current term, and our collective focus must turn to expansion immediately following the current term. The CFP has confirmed that we have another two years before we would need to come to agreement on an expanded format that could begin immediately after the current term ends....""

(01-11-2022 12:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...team-field

Pac says they favor all 6 models. Everyone else opposes at least one.

"...The league's statement is the first to publicly detail the six models the commissioners have considered, including three variations of an eight-team format:

• Qualification for the best 12 teams;

• Automatic qualifications (AQs) for the six highest-ranked conference champions and six at-large bids, which was the original June proposal;

• AQs for the Power 5 conferences and one AQ for the highest-ranked Group of Five champion, along with six at-large bids ("5+1+6");

• Qualification for the best eight teams;

• AQs for the six highest-ranked conference champions and two at-large bids ("6+2");

• AQs for the Autonomy Five conferences and one AQ for the highest-ranked Group of Five champion, along with two at-large bids ("5+1+2").

"It is clear none of the six most-discussed expansion models has unanimous consent, with most having considerable opposition, and every conference other than the Pac-12 has indicated that they would be against at least one of the proposed models," the statement read. "If all 11 CFP members are unable to agree unanimously on a new format, then no expansion can occur in the current term, and our collective focus must turn to expansion immediately following the current term. The CFP has confirmed that we have another two years before we would need to come to agreement on an expanded format that could begin immediately after the current term ends....""

Two years you say?

Time to put this on ice until at least the SCOTUS ruling, if not new TV deals for BIG and P12, plus OU UT exit agreement.

Let’s see how badly the G5, ACC and BIG don’t want to expand

What about 7+5, or 6+1+5?

Would SEC veto that one for not enough at larges?

My preference of these options:
1. Straight 8
2. 6 + 2
3. 5 + 1 + 2
4. Straight 12
5. 6 + 6
6. 5 + 1 + 6

I’d rather ease into it by having 8. I also prefer as many “best” teams as possible versus conference champions. I’m not a fan of 12 because of the bye round. I’m also not sure about adding too many more games. If a school plays at Hawaii and takes advantage of the Hawaii Rule and plays in their CCG and makes the 12-team playoff but not as a top 4 seed and plays in the NCG, they could have an 18-game season. That’s a lot for college.

(01-11-2022 01:33 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  My preference of these options:
1. Straight 8
2. 6 + 2
3. 5 + 1 + 2
4. Straight 12
5. 6 + 6
6. 5 + 1 + 6

I’d rather ease into it by having 8. I also prefer as many “best” teams as possible versus conference champions. I’m not a fan of 12 because of the bye round. I’m also not sure about adding too many more games. If a school plays at Hawaii and takes advantage of the Hawaii Rule and plays in their CCG and makes the 12-team playoff but not as a top 4 seed and plays in the NCG, they could have an 18-game season. That’s a lot for college.

Ordering our preferences is a fun game. I'm hopping in.

1. 6+6
2. 5+1+6
3. Straight 12
4. 6+2
5. 5+1+2
6. Straight 8

I think opportunity for more teams to have a chance to compete is the most important thing for me in the playoff. This wasn't one of the 6 choices, but my ideal playoff is 16 teams with every single conference champ getting in. 12+4.

Option 3 or 6 is best I can hope for. As long as the at-larges lost their CCG

(01-11-2022 01:33 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  My preference of these options:
1. Straight 8
2. 6 + 2
3. 5 + 1 + 2
4. Straight 12
5. 6 + 6
6. 5 + 1 + 6

I’d rather ease into it by having 8. I also prefer as many “best” teams as possible versus conference champions. I’m not a fan of 12 because of the bye round. I’m also not sure about adding too many more games. If a school plays at Hawaii and takes advantage of the Hawaii Rule and plays in their CCG and makes the 12-team playoff but not as a top 4 seed and plays in the NCG, they could have an 18-game season. That’s a lot for college.

Then it's right back to relying on "polls". We're going to ask the AP and UPI who can be in the playoffs? No thanks!

The basketball championships started with conference champions only. A lot of deserving teams got left out, but it made Conference Championships as valuable as the National title.
The football championships should grow the same way......conference champions only.

I would be shocked if you get to 5+1+6 model doesn’t get agreed to if the four g5 champions are guaranteed a New Years bowl for their champion and increases payout. Basically giving every conference champion a spot at table which alllows them to brand themselves as included. For example after winning the MAC the champion gets shirts and hats with whatever new format’s branding is even if they only end up playing the C-USA championship on New Year’s eve on ESPN. The game gets same branding as the NY6 and is treated as a champions bowl game.

(01-11-2022 06:37 AM)UCBearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  I would be shocked if you get to 5+1+6 model doesn’t get agreed to if the four g5 champions are guaranteed a New Years bowl for their champion and increases payout. Basically giving every conference champion a spot at table which alllows them to brand themselves as included. For example after winning the MAC the champion gets shirts and hats with whatever new format’s branding is even if they only end up playing the C-USA championship on New Year’s eve on ESPN. The game gets same branding as the NY6 and is treated as a champions bowl game.

Something like this is what I've suggested over and over again but we haven't heard anything about consolation bowls in the media.

It should be a 12-team playoff as follows:

1) The champion of conferences with at least 12-members divided into two division with a conference championship game automatically qualifies
2) Any conference with at least 16 teams, divided into four division with a four-team conference championship playoff will receive an at-large bid for their second-best team
3) Any remaining slots are to be filled by the best teams as determined by a straight-forward, open, public, and objective formula.

(01-11-2022 06:37 AM)UCBearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  I would be shocked if you get to 5+1+6 model doesn’t get agreed to if the four g5 champions are guaranteed a New Years bowl for their champion and increases payout. Basically giving every conference champion a spot at table which alllows them to brand themselves as included. For example after winning the MAC the champion gets shirts and hats with whatever new format’s branding is even if they only end up playing the C-USA championship on New Year’s eve on ESPN. The game gets same branding as the NY6 and is treated as a champions bowl game.

(01-11-2022 06:53 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 06:37 AM)UCBearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  I would be shocked if you get to 5+1+6 model doesn’t get agreed to if the four g5 champions are guaranteed a New Years bowl for their champion and increases payout. Basically giving every conference champion a spot at table which alllows them to brand themselves as included. For example after winning the MAC the champion gets shirts and hats with whatever new format’s branding is even if they only end up playing the C-USA championship on New Year’s eve on ESPN. The game gets same branding as the NY6 and is treated as a champions bowl game.

Something like this is what I've suggested over and over again but we haven't heard anything about consolation bowls in the media.

I don't think anyone is concerned with putting the 4 non-playoff G5 champs in good bowl games.
The G5 will cash their big CFP checks and say thank you.

(01-11-2022 05:57 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 01:33 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  My preference of these options:
1. Straight 8
2. 6 + 2
3. 5 + 1 + 2
4. Straight 12
5. 6 + 6
6. 5 + 1 + 6

I’d rather ease into it by having 8. I also prefer as many “best” teams as possible versus conference champions. I’m not a fan of 12 because of the bye round. I’m also not sure about adding too many more games. If a school plays at Hawaii and takes advantage of the Hawaii Rule and plays in their CCG and makes the 12-team playoff but not as a top 4 seed and plays in the NCG, they could have an 18-game season. That’s a lot for college.

Then it's right back to relying on "polls". We're going to ask the AP and UPI who can be in the playoffs? No thanks!

The basketball championships started with conference champions only. A lot of deserving teams got left out, but it made Conference Championships as valuable as the National title.
The football championships should grow the same way......conference champions only.

The problem with every conference champs-only proposal is that Notre Dame exists as an independent. The cold hard fact is that ND is more valuable to the system than all of the G5 and probably the next iteration of the Big 12, too. I think this forum perpetually overrates how much leverage that the G5 has and underrate how much leverage ND has with respect to CFP expansion.

The P5 aren’t bothered by ND because they’re a “maker” that makes money for the system. It’s when the “takers” that don’t make money for the system ask for anything that bothers them.

My preference:

(1) 5+1+6
(2) 6+6
(3) 5+1+2
(4) 6+2
(5) Stay at top 4

I’d rather stay with the top 4 than give even more power to a subjective committee that’s sitting in a conference room in Dallas. The Stockholm Syndrome that a lot of fans have to “straight” formats always baffles me, but to each his own.

(01-11-2022 08:05 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 05:57 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 01:33 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  My preference of these options:
1. Straight 8
2. 6 + 2
3. 5 + 1 + 2
4. Straight 12
5. 6 + 6
6. 5 + 1 + 6

I’d rather ease into it by having 8. I also prefer as many “best” teams as possible versus conference champions. I’m not a fan of 12 because of the bye round. I’m also not sure about adding too many more games. If a school plays at Hawaii and takes advantage of the Hawaii Rule and plays in their CCG and makes the 12-team playoff but not as a top 4 seed and plays in the NCG, they could have an 18-game season. That’s a lot for college.

Then it's right back to relying on "polls". We're going to ask the AP and UPI who can be in the playoffs? No thanks!

The basketball championships started with conference champions only. A lot of deserving teams got left out, but it made Conference Championships as valuable as the National title.
The football championships should grow the same way......conference champions only.

The problem with every conference champs-only proposal is that Notre Dame exists as an independent. The cold hard fact is that ND is more valuable to the system than all of the G5 and probably the next iteration of the Big 12, too. I think this forum perpetually overrates how much leverage that the G5 has and underrate how much leverage ND has with respect to CFP expansion.

The P5 aren’t bothered by ND because they’re a “maker” that makes money for the system. It’s when the “takers” that don’t make money for the system ask for anything that bothers them.

If the Irish choose not to participate.....that's their problem.
A 8 or 12 team championship even without Notre Dame would generate more money than the current system.
It's time for the dog to wag it's tail, not the other way around.

(01-11-2022 01:26 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  What about 7+5, or 6+1+5?

Would SEC veto that one for not enough at larges?

Yes, the SEC would veto that proposal. Frankly, the rest of the P5 and ND would veto it, too. The P5 auto-bids discussion certainly isn’t about providing access to more G5 teams. In fact, it’s quite the opposite - the point is that they *never* want to see more than one G5 champ in this system.

(01-11-2022 08:14 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 08:05 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 05:57 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 01:33 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  My preference of these options:
1. Straight 8
2. 6 + 2
3. 5 + 1 + 2
4. Straight 12
5. 6 + 6
6. 5 + 1 + 6

I’d rather ease into it by having 8. I also prefer as many “best” teams as possible versus conference champions. I’m not a fan of 12 because of the bye round. I’m also not sure about adding too many more games. If a school plays at Hawaii and takes advantage of the Hawaii Rule and plays in their CCG and makes the 12-team playoff but not as a top 4 seed and plays in the NCG, they could have an 18-game season. That’s a lot for college.

Then it's right back to relying on "polls". We're going to ask the AP and UPI who can be in the playoffs? No thanks!

The basketball championships started with conference champions only. A lot of deserving teams got left out, but it made Conference Championships as valuable as the National title.
The football championships should grow the same way......conference champions only.

The problem with every conference champs-only proposal is that Notre Dame exists as an independent. The cold hard fact is that ND is more valuable to the system than all of the G5 and probably the next iteration of the Big 12, too. I think this forum perpetually overrates how much leverage that the G5 has and underrate how much leverage ND has with respect to CFP expansion.

The P5 aren’t bothered by ND because they’re a “maker” that makes money for the system. It’s when the “takers” that don’t make money for the system ask for anything that bothers them.

If the Irish choose not to participate.....that's their problem.
A 8 or 12 team championship even without Notre Dame would generate more money than the current system.
It's time for the dog to wag it's tail, not the other way around.

Why would the SEC and Big Ten take action to force ND into a conference when that conference is going to be their direct competitor of the ACC? That is the problem with all of these scenarios of “forcing” ND to do anything on conference membership.

Look at how conciliatory the Big Ten has been with ND since they became a partial member of the ACC. They even let ND into their hockey conference, which was one of the few points of leverage that the B1G had over ND.

Why? Because the Big Ten wants nothing to do with ND being a football member of the ACC. The SEC wouldn’t want it, either. That would be giving their direct geographic competitor arguably the most valuable brand in college sports. The upshot is that they’d rather have ND stay as an independent forever at this point and that informs their CFP expansion decisions. (Note that while both the ACC and Big Ten want P5 auto-bids, it’s the ACC that wants the smaller 8-team playoff with fewer at-large bids while the Big Ten is fine with 12.)

(01-11-2022 12:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  Pac says they favor all 6 models. Everyone else opposes at least one.

IMO, the PAC told us nothing new, though it was nice to see it confirmed. I think we all knew that the models out there are straight-8 and straight 12, each of those numbers with P5 autobids and a spot for the G5, and each of those numbers with "top six" champs.

FWIW, my preferences are:

1) Straight 8
2) Straight 12
3) 6+6
4) 5+1+6
5) 6+2
6) 5+1+2

I would prefer the current CFP over options 4, 5 and 6, would rather not expand than go with any of those. Also, I've been pushing 6+6 around here because IMO, the "straight" options have basically no chance of passing.

(01-11-2022 05:57 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 01:33 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  My preference of these options:
1. Straight 8
2. 6 + 2
3. 5 + 1 + 2
4. Straight 12
5. 6 + 6
6. 5 + 1 + 6

I’d rather ease into it by having 8. I also prefer as many “best” teams as possible versus conference champions. I’m not a fan of 12 because of the bye round. I’m also not sure about adding too many more games. If a school plays at Hawaii and takes advantage of the Hawaii Rule and plays in their CCG and makes the 12-team playoff but not as a top 4 seed and plays in the NCG, they could have an 18-game season. That’s a lot for college.

Then it's right back to relying on "polls". We're going to ask the AP and UPI who can be in the playoffs? No thanks!

The basketball championships started with conference champions only. A lot of deserving teams got left out, but it made Conference Championships as valuable as the National title.
The football championships should grow the same way......conference champions only.

Yes, but there's a reason that model was abandoned going on 50 years ago - hoops fans were outraged when the #3 or #5 team in the country was left out because they lost their conference title game to the #2 team or whatever, while several unranked teams got in to the tournament just because they won their far weaker conferences.

I would bet that if the NCAA tournament had to choose between two models, a model that returned to a 32-team conference-champs only approach, or a model that was "straight" 32 with all teams picked by the committee and no preferences for conference champs, it would pick the latter without hesitation.

(01-11-2022 05:57 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-11-2022 01:33 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  My preference of these options:
1. Straight 8
2. 6 + 2
3. 5 + 1 + 2
4. Straight 12
5. 6 + 6
6. 5 + 1 + 6

I’d rather ease into it by having 8. I also prefer as many “best” teams as possible versus conference champions. I’m not a fan of 12 because of the bye round. I’m also not sure about adding too many more games. If a school plays at Hawaii and takes advantage of the Hawaii Rule and plays in their CCG and makes the 12-team playoff but not as a top 4 seed and plays in the NCG, they could have an 18-game season. That’s a lot for college.

Then it's right back to relying on "polls". We're going to ask the AP and UPI who can be in the playoffs? No thanks!

The basketball championships started with conference champions only. A lot of deserving teams got left out, but it made Conference Championships as valuable as the National title.
The football championships should grow the same way......conference champions only.

I’m sorry AFC North. The Bengals just aren’t a big brand and starting the season unranked they just didn’t climb the polls enough. So the AFC North will not be represented in the playoffs this year. Instead, the Patriots have been selected. We know you both have a 10-7 record, but their strength of schedule …or FPI… or some ****. Anyway, better luck next year.

No where but CFB do people think this is a good idea.

(01-11-2022 08:13 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  My preference:

(1) 5+1+6
(2) 6+6
(3) 5+1+2
(4) 6+2
(5) Stay at top 4

I’d rather stay with the top 4 than give even more power to a subjective committee that’s sitting in a conference room in Dallas. The Stockholm Syndrome that a lot of fans have to “straight” formats always baffles me, but to each his own.

Straight 8 or 12 isn't happening, but the committee bugs you, it's no problem at all to just dust off the old BCS formula and roll with it. Committee might have to handle matchups and seeding to avoid/delay rematches if you want, but NBD, what matters is who's in and who's out, who gets byes, who hosts 1st round games.