(01-09-2019 12:32 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 11:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 09:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 09:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 11:19 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  If the BCS had been in effect today, the CG would probably have been the same, the last 3 years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Georgia and Alabama would have been left out last year. They were 3 and 4

I'd bet the ranch that if there were only a two team playoff, the rankings would have been different. Bama and Georgia were #3 and #4 because voting that way didn't keep them out of the playoff.

Clemson was unbeaten. Alabama didn't win their division. Georgia had gotten thrashed by Auburn just a few weeks before. People have simulated the BCS and come up with the same top 4.

Clemson lost to Syracuse

You're right. I'm confusing it with 2015.
Still no justification for thinking the committee would be different. Its not like they were putting Wake Forest and Iowa St. 1 and 2.

(01-09-2019 01:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 11:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 10:47 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 09:53 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 09:40 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  That sums it up nicely.

Nothing is going to change until the new media contracts are settled. Why change only to have to change again in a couple of years?

Once those contracts are set and any realignment takes place, only then could there be discussions about expansion. Even then I doubt it because if what most think will happen happens (the P4), there will be no push to change except from the G5 which will be summarily dismissed by the new P4. Four power conferences, four seats at the table. Why would they change?

You change to get more money and more access. Even Hancock said they need to look about doing things better

Assuming there's some level of realignment, the conferences would get exactly that by leaving it at 4. The conference championship games would serve as (and could be considered) a pseudo quarterfinal allowing them to negotiate for more $$$ for those rights. All four conferences get access to the CFP at the same time.

The only fly in the proverbial ointment would be ND. I'm sure there would be a clause written into the contract that would allow an undefeated ND to take the place of the lowest ranked P4 champ, especially if that champion had multiple losses.

ESPN has a say. They don't want ONLY conference champions. No NCAA sport has ONLY conference champions. A P4 with a 4 team playoff may seem nice and neat, but it won't happen. And yes, there is Notre Dame and totally shutting out the G5. Just not realistic at all.

Alston changes all of that in a heartbeat. There are no G5 schools with less than a 25% subsidy. If there is no cap on paying players (even if we call it a stipend) the gap becomes untenable for those already heavily subsidized. So Bullet it's quite realistic, and would probably thin the P5 herd as well. Realignment and Contract renewals will follow the Alston ruling. So again if Alston wins it likely reshapes conferences. So a P4 becomes more likely in the subsequent few years after this year's ruling.

It's why I keep saying nothing is going to happen until Alston is settled and then it could be the catalyst for significant change.

All of the 8 team playoff, G5 inclusion, and continuance of a P5 is just whistling past the graveyard when set against the potential of the Alston ruling. That's why there will be no move on the CFP, no talk of realignment, nothing, until that case is settled.

If Alston loses, then we will hear whether or not there is any real intention for further realignment within the P5. Then we might hear more serious discussion about playoff expansion once the contracts are finalized for TV rights. Then we might actually hear something about G5 inclusion.

But if Alston loses, particularly on their chief point "a fixed payout standard" all bets are off. Regrouping of schools willing to operate without "pay caps" will occur. That means realignment and likely the reduction of the total number of P conferences, possibly the formation of a tweener tier between the "no caps" upper tier and the no stipend FCS. It would mean separation from the G5 by category as that tweener position would suit the vast majority of them budget wise. It wold likely mean that some present P5s would move down by choice. And yes Bullet it would mean that only having 4 in a playoff would be more than enough.

That ruling should be in by sometime in early February, or possibly sooner. When we know the reality of that case then speculation will be in order. It's simply not prior to that.

I'd say enjoy the January basketball schedule because message board speculation may be at fever pitch by Valentines' Day.

You are right its the elephant in the room and could lead to a lot of changes.

But its been hanging over their heads for a quarter century. I don't think they stop what they are doing for a contingency. The immediate issue is what it does to player demands. An 8 to 16 team playoff seemed likely in the early 90s. Then that FSU player on an NCAA committee asked what the players got out of it. The SEC came out unanimously against a playoff the next day. And the momentum died.

And if there is realignment as a result of paying the players, its still not going to eliminate wildcards. TV wants it. The conferences have no problem with it.

(01-09-2019 01:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 12:32 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 11:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 09:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 09:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  Georgia and Alabama would have been left out last year. They were 3 and 4

I'd bet the ranch that if there were only a two team playoff, the rankings would have been different. Bama and Georgia were #3 and #4 because voting that way didn't keep them out of the playoff.

Clemson was unbeaten. Alabama didn't win their division. Georgia had gotten thrashed by Auburn just a few weeks before. People have simulated the BCS and come up with the same top 4.

Clemson lost to Syracuse

You're right. I'm confusing it with 2015.
Still no justification for thinking the committee would be different. Its not like they were putting Wake Forest and Iowa St. 1 and 2.

No worries. I don't get to see them lose very often these days, so they tend to stand out.

(01-09-2019 12:33 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 11:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 10:47 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 09:53 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 09:40 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  That sums it up nicely.

Nothing is going to change until the new media contracts are settled. Why change only to have to change again in a couple of years?

Once those contracts are set and any realignment takes place, only then could there be discussions about expansion. Even then I doubt it because if what most think will happen happens (the P4), there will be no push to change except from the G5 which will be summarily dismissed by the new P4. Four power conferences, four seats at the table. Why would they change?

You change to get more money and more access. Even Hancock said they need to look about doing things better

Assuming there's some level of realignment, the conferences would get exactly that by leaving it at 4. The conference championship games would serve as (and could be considered) a pseudo quarterfinal allowing them to negotiate for more $$$ for those rights. All four conferences get access to the CFP at the same time.

The only fly in the proverbial ointment would be ND. I'm sure there would be a clause written into the contract that would allow an undefeated ND to take the place of the lowest ranked P4 champ, especially if that champion had multiple losses.

ESPN has a say. They don't want ONLY conference champions. No NCAA sport has ONLY conference champions. A P4 with a 4 team playoff may seem nice and neat, but it won't happen. And yes, there is Notre Dame and totally shutting out the G5. Just not realistic at all.

ESPN also knows where their bread is buttered when it comes to college sports (namely football) and that's the power conferences. There's no way the Powers will agree to expansion without automatic qualifiers. If there's realignment to P4, teams will have their opportunities to qualify in the CCG's which would be the defacto quarterfinals.

To be brutally honest, I doubt Fox or The Mouse give a damn about what the G5 think and I also doubt the P5(4) give a damn about shutting them out.

ND is the only wildcard but they'd pretty much have to go undefeated to make it a sticky situation.

I agree. The answer is to initiate P5 Autobids + the highest G5 champions + 2 wild cards. This way the CCGs serve as the first round of the playoffs.
Plus this allows a high ranking Independent (probably ND) to have access to the playoff.

(01-09-2019 04:32 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  ... The answer is to initiate P5 Autobids + the highest G5 champions + 2 wild cards. This way the CCGs serve as the first round of the playoffs.
Plus this allows a high ranking Independent (probably ND) to have access to the playoff.

EXACTLY.

The CCGs are the first round. In effect, the playoff is now 10-13 P5 schools depending on how things shake out with the at-larges and the G5. They could make the G5 rep have to be ranked in the Top 16 AP poll or that slot reverts back to the P5 pool. ND could be accommodated as well.

Basically merge the CFP with the BCS at-large rules.

5 P5 Conference Champions, 3 at-large using BCS type rules for ND and a G5 rep.

This would work very well.

(01-09-2019 02:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  And if there is realignment as a result of paying the players, its still not going to eliminate wildcards. TV wants it. The conferences have no problem with it.

TV doesn't give a hoot about wild cards, unless a major draw is on the sideline. What TV wants is four major draws from 4 distinct regions of the country. Sometimes a wild card helps with that and sometimes wild cards actually detract.

If they eliminated the subjective, everyone-has-their-own-agenda selection committee and used the BCS formula to choose the 4 teams, I'd be happy staying at 4. At least the BCS was objective.

I think it's inevitable that we will get a 5-1-2 playoff or some variation of it for the next cycle.

Perhaps the G5 champ will have to be in the top 12 or top 15 to secure a spot and if not gets routed to a NY6 consolation game against another team on the cusp of making the bracket.

I don't see stretching the football season into January for a tiny handful of teams to be a bad thing and we don't have to compromise the 12 game regular season. Theoretically, the NY6 bowls would have been played this season on Saturday Dec 29th and Tuesday Jan 1st. Monday and Tuesday night of this week would have been the semi-finals, and my preference for the National Title would be either MLK Day or the Saturday before the Pro Bowl.

(01-10-2019 11:56 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think it's inevitable that we will get a 5-1-2 playoff or some variation of it for the next cycle.

Perhaps the G5 champ will have to be in the top 12 or top 15 to secure a spot and if not gets routed to a NY6 consolation game against another team on the cusp of making the bracket.

IMO, if we have an 8-team playoff, the only way there will be an auto-bid for the top G5 team is if that team is ranked in the top 8. There won't be any special affirmative action provisions for them.

I don't think anyone, A5 or G5, will have an autobid in an 8 team playoff. How could you?

E.g., what if the five G5 champs are all undefeated and ranked in the top 5, which ones get kicked out to make room for the P5 champs if all P5 have an autobid?

Nonsensical.

Keep it at 4.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(01-10-2019 11:56 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think it's inevitable that we will get a 5-1-2 playoff or some variation of it for the next cycle.

Perhaps the G5 champ will have to be in the top 12 or top 15 to secure a spot and if not gets routed to a NY6 consolation game against another team on the cusp of making the bracket.

I don't see stretching the football season into January for a tiny handful of teams to be a bad thing and we don't have to compromise the 12 game regular season. Theoretically, the NY6 bowls would have been played this season on Saturday Dec 29th and Tuesday Jan 1st. Monday and Tuesday night of this week would have been the semi-finals, and my preference for the National Title would be either MLK Day or the Saturday before the Pro Bowl.

I think the university presidents might disagree with you on the bolded point. And I'm not sure how ESPN would feel about placing the playoffs squarely in competition with the NFL postseason either.

If the choice is between extending the playoffs further into January or eliminating them entirely, I would much prefer the latter.