(01-10-2021 07:32 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 07:09 PM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 03:55 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

Quote:"Whether it's six or eight, at some point in time it's going to happen," Stanford coach David Shaw told reporters Wednesday. "We all know it; we all believe it. We're just going to do it very, very slowly and methodically, but it's the only thing that makes sense.

"The only thing that should matter is: Did you fight really, really hard your entire season to win your conference? If you did, you should get a ticket to the dance. Now, outside of those five, now who deserves it? You have to look at independents, you have to look at No. 2s in some of those conferences, look at the roads they traveled. That's the only thing that truly makes sense, and I believe eventually we will get there, whether it's six or eight teams, I think it'll eventually happen."

Stanford coach says there has some room for No. 2's and independents in the new system. Sounds like he believes it champs should be invited based on schedule (CFP ranking?)

These ideas lend themselves to a Top 6 or Top 5 ranked conference champs in as oppose to autobids. This year that would mean Cincinnati as #5 and Coastal in at #6. The commentary here is close to the ken_d proposal.

I read that and I absolutely think Shaw is talking about autobids for the P-5.
I don't think he was including the G-5 at all in his thoughts. Probably never occurred to him.

He said it in a way that a "strong" schedule which we know means P5.

But the thing is if its really about the strength then the PAC could be in trouble.

He also said:
"Now, outside of those five, now who deserves it? You have to look at independents, you have to look at No. 2s in some of those conferences, look at the roads they traveled."

There are five autonomy conferences, those are the five he is speaking of. He's never going to suggest looking at the second place teams in a G-5 conference.

Besides, this thing never expands unless the autonomy five buy in. That only happens with autobids.

It's still good for the G-5 whether they get a guaranteed spot or not. Now, at most, one spot is up for grabs. At eight, with five autobids, the G-5 has a 3/125 shot instead of a 1/127 shot. If the G-5 top conference champ gets an autobid then it's a no brainer for them.

(01-10-2021 07:09 PM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 03:55 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

Quote:"Whether it's six or eight, at some point in time it's going to happen," Stanford coach David Shaw told reporters Wednesday. "We all know it; we all believe it. We're just going to do it very, very slowly and methodically, but it's the only thing that makes sense.

"The only thing that should matter is: Did you fight really, really hard your entire season to win your conference? If you did, you should get a ticket to the dance. Now, outside of those five, now who deserves it? You have to look at independents, you have to look at No. 2s in some of those conferences, look at the roads they traveled. That's the only thing that truly makes sense, and I believe eventually we will get there, whether it's six or eight teams, I think it'll eventually happen."

Stanford coach says there has some room for No. 2's and independents in the new system. Sounds like he believes it champs should be invited based on schedule (CFP ranking?)

These ideas lend themselves to a Top 6 or Top 5 ranked conference champs in as oppose to autobids. This year that would mean Cincinnati as #5 and Coastal in at #6. The commentary here is close to the ken_d proposal.

I read that and I absolutely think Shaw is talking about autobids for the P-5.
I don't think he was including the G-5 at all in his thoughts. Probably never occurred to him.

I agree. He said P5 and then look at Independents and #2s in the P5. If there is a new model and it will consider independents and not G5’s the better G5 schools will just go Indy.

(01-10-2021 07:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 04:35 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 04:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 09:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  I am not in favor of an 8 team playoff. I'm not thrilled about a 4 team playoff either, but it's much better than the 2 team BCS model that preceded it. Nevertheless, I recognize that I'm in the minority on this issue, and I strongly expect that FBS will eventually follow the model of other sports and expand their playoffs for the crassest of motives - cash. So here's how I would like to see that go down.

I like it better than 5/1/2, less than straight-8.

One thing it definitely does is raises the stakes of conference championship games.

Let's think about that. Your view is one I shared when I proposed this. But consider what happens now if 15th ranked Northwestern upsets 3rd ranked Ohio State in the B1G CCG. With only four CFP slots, the Buckeyes almost surely get knocked out. But with 8 CFP slots, maybe Northwestern is still not one of the 6 highest ranked champions and gets left out of the CFP. But would Ohio State drop far enough to also be left out, or could they still get in as an at-large?

The whole point is that the Big Ten doesn’t (and the other P5 leagues don’t) even want that to be a discussion. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the #1 reason for an expansion to an 8-team playoff (outside of just straight up making more money) is so that there will be auto-bids for the P5 100% guaranteed even if their champ is 6-6 (much less ranked #15). We can debate whether that’s a good thing or not, but that’s the reality of why an 8-team playoff would happen in the first place. A “top 6” conference champ system where the Sun Belt champ (much less the AAC champ) gets in instead of the Pac-12 champ just isn’t happening.

The P5 leagues don’t flex their power when their champs are highly ranked because they don’t even need their power when that occurs. Instead, their power comes from a year like this one when Oregon is ranked #25. That’s *exactly* when they want the protection of an auto-bid.

They powers that he would simply do a “straight 8” playoff before they would ever do a top 6 conference champs system... but once again, I think the point is moot because I legitimately see that P5 auto-bids are the bare minimum requirement for getting to an 8-team playoff system in the first place. The fight will be over whether the best G5 champ gets a slot or not - the P5 will make sure that none of their champs *ever* gets left out of the playoff again (as the CFP system has shown how much damage it does).

(01-10-2021 07:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 04:35 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 04:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 09:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  I am not in favor of an 8 team playoff. I'm not thrilled about a 4 team playoff either, but it's much better than the 2 team BCS model that preceded it. Nevertheless, I recognize that I'm in the minority on this issue, and I strongly expect that FBS will eventually follow the model of other sports and expand their playoffs for the crassest of motives - cash. So here's how I would like to see that go down.

I like it better than 5/1/2, less than straight-8.

One thing it definitely does is raises the stakes of conference championship games.

Let's think about that. Your view is one I shared when I proposed this. But consider what happens now if 15th ranked Northwestern upsets 3rd ranked Ohio State in the B1G CCG. With only four CFP slots, the Buckeyes almost surely get knocked out. But with 8 CFP slots, maybe Northwestern is still not one of the 6 highest ranked champions and gets left out of the CFP. But would Ohio State drop far enough to also be left out, or could they still get in as an at-large?

In the 4 team scenario #15 Northwestern is out of the playoff, even with a win against #3 Ohio State but in an 8 team format they are likely in. Very likely one of the Top 6 conference champs after that victory too.

OSU would likely be good enough they stay Top 8.

(01-10-2021 07:52 PM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 07:32 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 07:09 PM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 03:55 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

Quote:"Whether it's six or eight, at some point in time it's going to happen," Stanford coach David Shaw told reporters Wednesday. "We all know it; we all believe it. We're just going to do it very, very slowly and methodically, but it's the only thing that makes sense.

"The only thing that should matter is: Did you fight really, really hard your entire season to win your conference? If you did, you should get a ticket to the dance. Now, outside of those five, now who deserves it? You have to look at independents, you have to look at No. 2s in some of those conferences, look at the roads they traveled. That's the only thing that truly makes sense, and I believe eventually we will get there, whether it's six or eight teams, I think it'll eventually happen."

Stanford coach says there has some room for No. 2's and independents in the new system. Sounds like he believes it champs should be invited based on schedule (CFP ranking?)

These ideas lend themselves to a Top 6 or Top 5 ranked conference champs in as oppose to autobids. This year that would mean Cincinnati as #5 and Coastal in at #6. The commentary here is close to the ken_d proposal.

I read that and I absolutely think Shaw is talking about autobids for the P-5.
I don't think he was including the G-5 at all in his thoughts. Probably never occurred to him.

He said it in a way that a "strong" schedule which we know means P5.

But the thing is if its really about the strength then the PAC could be in trouble.

He also said:
"Now, outside of those five, now who deserves it? You have to look at independents, you have to look at No. 2s in some of those conferences, look at the roads they traveled."

There are five autonomy conferences, those are the five he is speaking of. He's never going to suggest looking at the second place teams in a G-5 conference.

Besides, this thing never expands unless the autonomy five buy in. That only happens with autobids.

It's still good for the G-5 whether they get a guaranteed spot or not. Now, at most, one spot is up for grabs. At eight, with five autobids, the G-5 has a 3/125 shot instead of a 1/127 shot. If the G-5 top conference champ gets an autobid then it's a no brainer for them.

Here is the full quote.

"The only thing that should matter is: Did you fight really, really hard your entire season to win your conference? If you did, you should get a ticket to the dance. Now, outside of those five, now who deserves it? You have to look at independents, you have to look at No. 2s in some of those conferences, look at the roads they traveled.

He said the large question was did you fight hard during conference play to win your conference. That is a very subjective because you can be like Ohio St. and be way better than everyone else in your conference.

Or you can play in the Sun Belt and it was a dogfight to go undefeated.

But what he's saying for independents and #2's there has to be slots beyond the P5 champs.

If they moved to an NCAA basketball type of thing where seeding is more about who you can beat rather than conference schedule then someone like Houston in the year they beat Oklahoma would be at a different level in the conversation. Louisiana beating Iowa State this year is another example where they belonged up there higher in the rankings.

Using the CFP committee logic Gonzaga would never be a one seed on the basis of playing in the WCC. The WCC is quite weak at the bottom half compared to a P5 league definitely.

With the CFP semifinal blowouts you got to wonder if another 20 teams out there could have done better in that game. Its like something you might expect from a Top 4 ranked team against one ranked in the 20's.

(01-10-2021 10:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 07:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 04:35 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 04:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 09:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  I am not in favor of an 8 team playoff. I'm not thrilled about a 4 team playoff either, but it's much better than the 2 team BCS model that preceded it. Nevertheless, I recognize that I'm in the minority on this issue, and I strongly expect that FBS will eventually follow the model of other sports and expand their playoffs for the crassest of motives - cash. So here's how I would like to see that go down.

I like it better than 5/1/2, less than straight-8.

One thing it definitely does is raises the stakes of conference championship games.

Let's think about that. Your view is one I shared when I proposed this. But consider what happens now if 15th ranked Northwestern upsets 3rd ranked Ohio State in the B1G CCG. With only four CFP slots, the Buckeyes almost surely get knocked out. But with 8 CFP slots, maybe Northwestern is still not one of the 6 highest ranked champions and gets left out of the CFP. But would Ohio State drop far enough to also be left out, or could they still get in as an at-large?

The whole point is that the Big Ten doesn’t (and the other P5 leagues don’t) even want that to be a discussion. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the #1 reason for an expansion to an 8-team playoff (outside of just straight up making more money) is so that there will be auto-bids for the P5 100% guaranteed even if their champ is 6-6 (much less ranked #15). We can debate whether that’s a good thing or not, but that’s the reality of why an 8-team playoff would happen in the first place. A “top 6” conference champ system where the Sun Belt champ (much less the AAC champ) gets in instead of the Pac-12 champ just isn’t happening.

Who has said 8 teams is about autobids for the P5 so they can be 100% guaranteed?

If autobids were such a priority why didn't the P5 insist on a playoff with autobids last time around?

What is wrong with the SBC champ getting in? Do you think the leadership in the P5s really care if they take a slot from a P5?

Back in the last BCS cycle the rule was Top 12 for a non-AQ conference but Top 16 if ranked ahead of one of the 6 BCS conference champions. They actually rewarded the non-AQ champ for finishing ahead of a AQ champ.

(01-10-2021 01:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  Your model is basically a P5 + Notre Dame in the playoffs model. Horrible idea to give Notre Dame such an easy path.

So you’re saying Notre Dame is better than the G5, yet the G5 deserves a playoff spot over them?

(01-10-2021 07:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 04:35 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 04:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 09:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  I am not in favor of an 8 team playoff. I'm not thrilled about a 4 team playoff either, but it's much better than the 2 team BCS model that preceded it. Nevertheless, I recognize that I'm in the minority on this issue, and I strongly expect that FBS will eventually follow the model of other sports and expand their playoffs for the crassest of motives - cash. So here's how I would like to see that go down.

I like it better than 5/1/2, less than straight-8.

One thing it definitely does is raises the stakes of conference championship games.

Let's think about that. Your view is one I shared when I proposed this. But consider what happens now if 15th ranked Northwestern upsets 3rd ranked Ohio State in the B1G CCG. With only four CFP slots, the Buckeyes almost surely get knocked out. But with 8 CFP slots, maybe Northwestern is still not one of the 6 highest ranked champions and gets left out of the CFP. But would Ohio State drop far enough to also be left out, or could they still get in as an at-large?

Northwestern should absolutely be in. Remember NC State’s basketball run?

Unless the NCAA somehow wrangles away the reins for a tournament:

#P5autobids

In my mind, which as many will attest often works in strange ways, I imagine the Big 12 and the PAC resolving some of their internal conflicts by following the example of Notre Dame vis a vis the ACC.

I could see Texas going independent in football if the Big 12 would give them the following deal. In exchange for the B12 providing a home for all their other sports, Texas would agree to play five games a year against B12 opponents - Oklahoma every year in the RRR plus the other 8 schools every other year. Texas would be eligible to fill any B12 bowl tie in except for a New Years tie in.

In the PAC, both USC and Stanford go indy in football, and agree to play 6 games against PAC opponents: Cal and UCLA every year, plus one each from the four pairs of Washington/Washington St; Oregon/Oregon State; Arizona/Arizona St; and Utah/Colorado.

Now the ranks of the football indies include Notre Dame, BYU, Texas, Stanford and USC, all of whom agree to a scheduling pact in which they play each other every year.

Notre Dame's annual schedule includes USC, Stanford, Texas, BYU, Navy and 5 ACC opponents.

Texas' schedule includes USC, Stanford, Notre Dame, BYU, Oklahoma, Texas A&M and 4 B12 opponents.

USC and Stanford's annual schedules include Notre Dame, Texas, BYU, California, UCLA, 4 PAC opponents and each other.

BYU has no conference tie-in, so their annual schedule only includes Notre Dame, Texas, Stanford, USC, Utah, Boise State and 3-4 P5 opponents TBD.

If this were to come to pass, I would modify my proposal. Treating indies as a quasi-conference and deeming its "champion" to be the highest ranked team among its ten members, I would have an 8 team championship tournament that includes the 8 highest ranked of the 11 champions, with no at large entries. That ranking would be determined by a separate poll of the AP voters who would only rank those 11 teams.

The NY4, the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta Bowls, would be filled by the 8 highest ranked teams not in the playoff. The placement of those 8 teams could be subject first to contractual arrangements between the bowls and the conferences. For example, the Rose could be assured of their choice of PAC and B1G teams if they are in the at large field. The Sugar could do likewise with the SEC and B12, and the Orange with the ACC.

Bottom line: All 11 conference champions have a path to the Tournament of Champions, with 3 of them being left out each year based on their performance.

(01-11-2021 12:19 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 10:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 07:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 04:35 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 04:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I like it better than 5/1/2, less than straight-8.

One thing it definitely does is raises the stakes of conference championship games.

Let's think about that. Your view is one I shared when I proposed this. But consider what happens now if 15th ranked Northwestern upsets 3rd ranked Ohio State in the B1G CCG. With only four CFP slots, the Buckeyes almost surely get knocked out. But with 8 CFP slots, maybe Northwestern is still not one of the 6 highest ranked champions and gets left out of the CFP. But would Ohio State drop far enough to also be left out, or could they still get in as an at-large?

The whole point is that the Big Ten doesn’t (and the other P5 leagues don’t) even want that to be a discussion. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the #1 reason for an expansion to an 8-team playoff (outside of just straight up making more money) is so that there will be auto-bids for the P5 100% guaranteed even if their champ is 6-6 (much less ranked #15). We can debate whether that’s a good thing or not, but that’s the reality of why an 8-team playoff would happen in the first place. A “top 6” conference champ system where the Sun Belt champ (much less the AAC champ) gets in instead of the Pac-12 champ just isn’t happening.

Who has said 8 teams is about autobids for the P5 so they can be 100% guaranteed?

If autobids were such a priority why didn't the P5 insist on a playoff with autobids last time around?

Yeah, that's why I don't think the P5 care as much about 100% guarantees in an 8-team playoff as FT does - if it is so important why has it never existed, up to and including this very day?

Doesn't compute for me. I do not doubt that the P5 would like their champs to automatically all get in, but I just do not necessarily think it is a requirement in their minds to go to 8. It never has been before.

Auto bids haven’t existed because there haven’t been enough playoff rounds to guarantee them to all the top conferences. With a round of 8 that changes. Student athlete pressures are what have prevented a third (and, until 2014, a second) round.

(01-11-2021 08:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  In my mind, which as many will attest often works in strange ways, I imagine the Big 12 and the PAC resolving some of their internal conflicts by following the example of Notre Dame vis a vis the ACC.

I could see Texas going independent in football if the Big 12 would give them the following deal. In exchange for the B12 providing a home for all their other sports, Texas would agree to play five games a year against B12 opponents - Oklahoma every year in the RRR plus the other 8 schools every other year. Texas would be eligible to fill any B12 bowl tie in except for a New Years tie in.

In the PAC, both USC and Stanford go indy in football, and agree to play 6 games against PAC opponents: Cal and UCLA every year, plus one each from the four pairs of Washington/Washington St; Oregon/Oregon State; Arizona/Arizona St; and Utah/Colorado.

Now the ranks of the football indies include Notre Dame, BYU, Texas, Stanford and USC, all of whom agree to a scheduling pact in which they play each other every year.

Notre Dame's annual schedule includes USC, Stanford, Texas, BYU, Navy and 5 ACC opponents.

Texas' schedule includes USC, Stanford, Notre Dame, BYU, Oklahoma, Texas A&M and 4 B12 opponents.

USC and Stanford's annual schedules include Notre Dame, Texas, BYU, California, UCLA, 4 PAC opponents and each other.

BYU has no conference tie-in, so their annual schedule only includes Notre Dame, Texas, Stanford, USC, Utah, Boise State and 3-4 P5 opponents TBD.

If this were to come to pass, I would modify my proposal. Treating indies as a quasi-conference and deeming its "champion" to be the highest ranked team among its ten members, I would have an 8 team championship tournament that includes the 8 highest ranked of the 11 champions, with no at large entries. That ranking would be determined by a separate poll of the AP voters who would only rank those 11 teams.

The NY4, the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta Bowls, would be filled by the 8 highest ranked teams not in the playoff. The placement of those 8 teams could be subject first to contractual arrangements between the bowls and the conferences. For example, the Rose could be assured of their choice of PAC and B1G teams if they are in the at large field. The Sugar could do likewise with the SEC and B12, and the Orange with the ACC.

Bottom line: All 11 conference champions have a path to the Tournament of Champions, with 3 of them being left out each year based on their performance.

Elsewhere when talking about this subject, Frank the Tank invoked the K.I.S.S. formula (Keep It Simple Stupid). That's usually pretty good advice. Keeping that in mind, I see that I referred to an NY4 bowl group (as opposed to an NY6 or NY8 or any number of NYs). It occurs to me that, if there were an 8 team Tournament of Champions along the lines I proposed, why does that Tournament need to be linked in any way to the bowl system? It can stand alone.

And, in that case, why does there need to be any reason to prescribe who the bowls must invite? Why not let them revert to the way it was before the Bowl Alliance? If the Rose Bowl wants to always match the B1G and the PAC, why should we tell them different? Why should they have to share their superior revenue stream with other New Year's bowls? Let the marketplace manage all that.

(01-11-2021 10:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-11-2021 12:19 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 10:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 07:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 04:35 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  One thing it definitely does is raises the stakes of conference championship games.

Let's think about that. Your view is one I shared when I proposed this. But consider what happens now if 15th ranked Northwestern upsets 3rd ranked Ohio State in the B1G CCG. With only four CFP slots, the Buckeyes almost surely get knocked out. But with 8 CFP slots, maybe Northwestern is still not one of the 6 highest ranked champions and gets left out of the CFP. But would Ohio State drop far enough to also be left out, or could they still get in as an at-large?

The whole point is that the Big Ten doesn’t (and the other P5 leagues don’t) even want that to be a discussion. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the #1 reason for an expansion to an 8-team playoff (outside of just straight up making more money) is so that there will be auto-bids for the P5 100% guaranteed even if their champ is 6-6 (much less ranked #15). We can debate whether that’s a good thing or not, but that’s the reality of why an 8-team playoff would happen in the first place. A “top 6” conference champ system where the Sun Belt champ (much less the AAC champ) gets in instead of the Pac-12 champ just isn’t happening.

Who has said 8 teams is about autobids for the P5 so they can be 100% guaranteed?

If autobids were such a priority why didn't the P5 insist on a playoff with autobids last time around?

Yeah, that's why I don't think the P5 care as much about 100% guarantees in an 8-team playoff as FT does - if it is so important why has it never existed, up to and including this very day?

Doesn't compute for me. I do not doubt that the P5 would like their champs to automatically all get in, but I just do not necessarily think it is a requirement in their minds to go to 8. It never has been before.

Like I mentioned before, auto-bids have existed for over 100 years with the Pac and the Rose Bowl. Auto-bids exist now for the P5 with bowl tie-ins—they're literally guaranteed a NY6 payday.

If anybody thinks for one instance the P5 wouldn't like to guarantee a position in an 8-team playoff while simultaneously increasing the importance—and gate and television revenue—for their CCG's, they are naive. Too many positives for P5 auto-bids in an expanded playoff.

(01-11-2021 10:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-11-2021 12:19 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 10:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 07:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 04:35 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  One thing it definitely does is raises the stakes of conference championship games.

Let's think about that. Your view is one I shared when I proposed this. But consider what happens now if 15th ranked Northwestern upsets 3rd ranked Ohio State in the B1G CCG. With only four CFP slots, the Buckeyes almost surely get knocked out. But with 8 CFP slots, maybe Northwestern is still not one of the 6 highest ranked champions and gets left out of the CFP. But would Ohio State drop far enough to also be left out, or could they still get in as an at-large?

The whole point is that the Big Ten doesn’t (and the other P5 leagues don’t) even want that to be a discussion. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the #1 reason for an expansion to an 8-team playoff (outside of just straight up making more money) is so that there will be auto-bids for the P5 100% guaranteed even if their champ is 6-6 (much less ranked #15). We can debate whether that’s a good thing or not, but that’s the reality of why an 8-team playoff would happen in the first place. A “top 6” conference champ system where the Sun Belt champ (much less the AAC champ) gets in instead of the Pac-12 champ just isn’t happening.

Who has said 8 teams is about autobids for the P5 so they can be 100% guaranteed?

If autobids were such a priority why didn't the P5 insist on a playoff with autobids last time around?

Yeah, that's why I don't think the P5 care as much about 100% guarantees in an 8-team playoff as FT does - if it is so important why has it never existed, up to and including this very day?

Doesn't compute for me. I do not doubt that the P5 would like their champs to automatically all get in, but I just do not necessarily think it is a requirement in their minds to go to 8. It never has been before.

Of course you can’t have auto-bids for the championship in a 4-team playoff (or 2-team playoff under the old BCS system) simply because of math! If you’re talking about a conference champ requirement to get into the the 4-team playoff, then that’s very different than an auto-bid. A “straight 4” is the only real way that you could have a 4-team playoff because that small of a playoff field is inherently going to be 100% subjective (so the criteria to get in ought to provide maximum flexibility). The equation changes completely when the playoff field is large enough to have every power conference to have an auto-bid, though, which wasn’t ever mathematically possible before.

Look - there are reasons why one might favor a “straight 8” playoff over an auto-bid (even though I don’t personally agree with them). However, I don’t think the lack of a conference championship requirement for the playoff in the past means anything in a larger 8-team playoff field. Ultimately, an 8-team playoff effectively will consume all of the major bowls, in which esayem correctly noted that the power conferences *do* have (and always had) auto-bids, so that’s the big resulting shift that I don’t think that a lot of straight 8 proponents or arguments against P5 auto-bids are taking into account.

The Rose Bowl was, at the very worst, the 2nd most valuable bowl game in the BCS system and is the 3rd most valuable bowl game in non-playoff years in the current CFP system... and the Big Ten and Pac-12 auto-bids were valued accordingly to the point where “Contract Bowl = Power Conference”. In contrast, a non-playoff Rose Bowl that is going to be the 5th best bowl game in an 8-team playoff system isn’t going to provide the same auto-bid value to those P5 leagues. You can go on down the line with the SEC/Big 12 auto-bids to the Sugar Bowl and ACC auto-bid to the Orange Bowl.

The auto-bids for the P5 to non-playoff Contract Bowls will inherently be devalued in an 8-team playoff system... and the P5 sure as heck aren’t going to expand the playoff to receive *less* guaranteed money. The only way that value can be replicated (or more importantly, exceeded) is to have those Contract Bowl auto-bids *within* the 8-team playoff system.

(01-11-2021 03:07 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-11-2021 10:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-11-2021 12:19 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 10:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 07:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  Let's think about that. Your view is one I shared when I proposed this. But consider what happens now if 15th ranked Northwestern upsets 3rd ranked Ohio State in the B1G CCG. With only four CFP slots, the Buckeyes almost surely get knocked out. But with 8 CFP slots, maybe Northwestern is still not one of the 6 highest ranked champions and gets left out of the CFP. But would Ohio State drop far enough to also be left out, or could they still get in as an at-large?

The whole point is that the Big Ten doesn’t (and the other P5 leagues don’t) even want that to be a discussion. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the #1 reason for an expansion to an 8-team playoff (outside of just straight up making more money) is so that there will be auto-bids for the P5 100% guaranteed even if their champ is 6-6 (much less ranked #15). We can debate whether that’s a good thing or not, but that’s the reality of why an 8-team playoff would happen in the first place. A “top 6” conference champ system where the Sun Belt champ (much less the AAC champ) gets in instead of the Pac-12 champ just isn’t happening.

Who has said 8 teams is about autobids for the P5 so they can be 100% guaranteed?

If autobids were such a priority why didn't the P5 insist on a playoff with autobids last time around?

Yeah, that's why I don't think the P5 care as much about 100% guarantees in an 8-team playoff as FT does - if it is so important why has it never existed, up to and including this very day?

Doesn't compute for me. I do not doubt that the P5 would like their champs to automatically all get in, but I just do not necessarily think it is a requirement in their minds to go to 8. It never has been before.

Of course you can’t have auto-bids for the championship in a 4-team playoff (or 2-team playoff under the old BCS system) simply because of math! If you’re talking about a conference champ requirement to get into the the 4-team playoff, then that’s very different than an auto-bid. A “straight 4” is the only real way that you could have a 4-team playoff because that small of a playoff field is inherently going to be 100% subjective (so the criteria to get in ought to provide maximum flexibility). The equation changes completely when the playoff field is large enough to have every power conference to have an auto-bid, though, which wasn’t ever mathematically possible before.

Look - there are reasons why one might favor a “straight 8” playoff over an auto-bid (even though I don’t personally agree with them). However, I don’t think the lack of a conference championship requirement for the playoff in the past means anything in a larger 8-team playoff field. Ultimately, an 8-team playoff effectively will consume all of the major bowls, in which esayem correctly noted that the power conferences *do* have (and always had) auto-bids, so that’s the big resulting shift that I don’t think that a lot of straight 8 proponents or arguments against P5 auto-bids are taking into account.

The Rose Bowl was, at the very worst, the 2nd most valuable bowl game in the BCS system and is the 3rd most valuable bowl game in non-playoff years in the current CFP system... and the Big Ten and Pac-12 auto-bids were valued accordingly to the point where “Contract Bowl = Power Conference”. In contrast, a non-playoff Rose Bowl that is going to be the 5th best bowl game in an 8-team playoff system isn’t going to provide the same auto-bid value to those P5 leagues. You can go on down the line with the SEC/Big 12 auto-bids to the Sugar Bowl and ACC auto-bid to the Orange Bowl.

The auto-bids for the P5 to non-playoff Contract Bowls will inherently be devalued in an 8-team playoff system... and the P5 sure as heck aren’t going to expand the playoff to receive *less* guaranteed money. The only way that value can be replicated (or more importantly, exceeded) is to have those Contract Bowl auto-bids *within* the 8-team playoff system.

Of course you can't have 5 auto-bids in a 4-team playoff (like the CFP) or a 2-team playoff (like the BCS), but, there was no law saying the organizers of these systems had to progress from 2 teams to 4 teams, etc. If having auto-bids was so darn important, they could have designed an 8-team playoff with them in 1998, or in 2014. But they didn't, so obviously it was not a deal-breaker at those times.

As for auto-bids, yes, I think there will still be two major bowls outside the playoffs, and those could have auto-bids for P5 champs left out of the playoffs. Yes, those bids will be diminished in value, but since it is pretty clear that the vast bulk of P5 champs will make the playoffs anyway in Straight-8, that won't be an issue.

As for money, all of the above siad, I agree that if a 5/1/2 model makes clearly more money than other variants for the P5, then we will likely get that. That is yet to be seen.

As a Notre Dame fan, I like the setup as it gives ND the easiest path in the country to make the playoffs. As a fan of college football in general, giving one team a much easier path isn’t the way to go.


No one has asked for my opinion and likely never will. But here it is

1) Expand to eight teams
2) Get rid of the committee
3) Go back to the BCS formula for rankings
4) Selection Process
—— Top Four Teams are in.
—— Then the four highest rated conference champions not selected are invited provided they are in the top 10 of the ratings.
—— If any spots remain after the above step, the highest ranked team gets in.
5) Limit confernces to no more than three bids
6) Quater finals the week after Army-Navy
7) Matchips are based on rankings except that teams are moved to ensure no games against confernce opponents or rematches in the quarterfinals (where possible)
8) Semi finals on New Years Day
9) Stop hosting the chamionship on monday night! Either work something out with the NFL to play on saturday night without competition, or move it to Friday Night. Either way give the teams at least one saturday off between New Years and the championship game
10) Semi final & championship games are the Rose, Sugar, and Orange. The games would rotate through which one is the national title game. If Rose Bowl is unwilling to play on any day other than New Years, championship rotates between Sugar and Orange.

This has some big advantages over the current system and the 5+1+2 system

1) Conference championships are still important
2) Teams in conferences have an easier path than independents. I love ND’s independence but I don’t think they should have an easier path because of it.
3)The mixture of polls and computer rankings give a proper mix between the “eye test” and straight analytics.
4) The Army Navy Game is still given its own day. I love this tradition and think the midshipmen and cadets deserve to be showcased.
5)The minimum ranking prevents a bad conference champ from getting in just because they won a power conference. For instance what if a three loss Pac12 division winner ends up winning their confernce? Do they really deserve to be invited?
6) Given that all (or almost all) years their will be at least two conference champions in the top four teams, A G5 confernce champ in the top 10 of the rankings would be gauranteed a spot. It could even lead to two G5 teams getting in (although admittedly this would be much less likely)
7) Allows independents besides ND a chance at the playoff. Who likes the idea of an Army or BYU ranked 6th not given a chance because the best G5 confernce is ranked 12th?
8) You keep tradition alive by keeping the big 3 bowls prestigious.