(06-08-2021 02:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Here’s a break down of who would receive at larges in a 5-1-6 vs 5-1-4 over 2014-2020 using the Committee Rankings:

Big 10: 13 10
SEC: 11 10
ACC: 4 1
PAC 12: 5 1
Big 12: 6 3
ND: 3 3

Both systems net the Big 10 and SEC oodles of at large bids while the other 3 lag behind.

5-1-6 isn’t terrible for the Big 12, but they’d really suffer under 5-1-4.

The PAC 12 and ACC would struggle to get at larges in 5-1-4.

You left out the AAC. UCF would have gotten an at-large a couple of years back, when they were ranked #8, and the MWC was the most highly-ranked conference.

There is nothing that has to change structurally from the current structure we already have.

As we have discussed, Navy is in a bit of a pickle with Army Navy scheduled after the CCG. Maybe this can get an exclusive Black Friday slot on Thanksgiving weekend. This is because 5-12 seeds have to play the week after the CCGs.

Between Xmas and NYD is the best time to host campus site games. Families are home. They don't need to be running around during the Holidays to exotic bowl games. However, this may cost tourism revenue and casual fans travelling to these games. Otherwise, schedule 5-12 right before Xmas.

The Final 8 would definitely be in lieu of your NY6 slate. But I don't believe they have an answer to the Final 2 schools facing three travel weekends. It is not tenable on any metric. Otherwise, they could reseed for the semis at campus sites, week 18 of the NFL season (1st weekend of January). This is THE major obstacle I see with any 8 team expansion. 6 teams is most feasible because you can squeeze in two Play-In games in place of Army Navy, or right before the Holidays.... at campus sites.

I wonder if rather than doing away with the ccg to eliminate the extra game, maybe the conferences can try a champions week format like the Big Ten tried last year.

In other words, leave the scheduling for the last week of the regular season flexible and try to match the best 2 teams in a CGG, and match the 3rd best team against the 4th best team, etc. Or if a conference still has divisions, match the 2 division winners against each other in the ccg. And the 2nd best teams in each division against each other, etc. You can set it up so that each division will be the home team in opposite years for non-ccg games.

You go with this format, you don't even need to change the rules for the CCG, because those rules are only necessary if you want the CCG to be the 13th game.

.

Everyone seems to be assuming that there aren't going to be any years:

1) when a G5 conference other than the AAC is the most highly-ranked G5 conference.

--According to the Massey Composite, the MWC was the top-ranked G5 conference in 2014 and 2018.

2) when there will be at least one G5 at-large team.

--The MWC conference champion would have gotten the G5 auto-bid in 2018.

--Thus, #8 UCF would have been an at-large team in 2018.

.


Would the P5 conferences dominate a 12-team format College Football Playoff for the next decade and beyond?

It seems likely. However, there has been a trend in the past few years, with more and more non-P5 teams making their way onto the late season top 25 lists.


2020 (Final CFP Rankings):...2020 Week 16 AP Top 25:.....Week 16 Coaches Poll:

(#8, 9-0) Cincinnati............................#6...................................#6

(#12; 11-0) Coastal Carolina................#9...................................#11

(#16; 10-1) BYU................................#13..................................#15

(#19; 10-1) Louisiana.........................#16.................................#17

(#22; 7-0) San Jose St........................#19.................................#20

(#24, 6-1) Tulsa.................................#22.................................#25

If the AP and Coaches Top 25 rankings had been used, instead of the CFP rankings, Coastal Carolina would have been a G5 at-large team in 2020.

NOTE:

The CFP ranked five of the six non-P5 schools 1 to 3 points lower than the AP and Coaches polls did.

There were eight non-P5 schools in the Final AP and Coaches Top 25 lists.

.

With two potential G5 at-large teams in 2018 and 2020, the possibility cannot be ruled out that there would be a few occasional G5 teams in a 12-team College Football Playoff.

.

(06-10-2021 08:12 AM)goofus Wrote:  I wonder if rather than doing away with the ccg to eliminate the extra game, maybe the conferences can try a champions week format like the Big Ten tried last year.

In other words, leave the scheduling for the last week of the regular season flexible and try to match the best 2 teams in a CGG, and match the 3rd best team against the 4th best team, etc. Or if a conference still has divisions, match the 2 division winners against each other in the ccg. And the 2nd best teams in each division against each other, etc. You can set it up so that each division will be the home team in opposite years for non-ccg games.

You go with this format, you don't even need to change the rules for the CCG, because those rules are only necessary if you want the CCG to be the 13th game.

That's what I think should happen. You could limit it to teams at or above .500 if logistics are an issue. If I'm the Big Ten, PAC-12, and maybe Big 12, I'm cutting back to 8 scheduled conference games (preferably divisionless) to get a 4th non-comference game (2 P5 games min.) and using Champions Week as the 9th conference game. This drops 1 non-CCG conference game (if all teams participate) while adding 10-14 non-conference games all likely against P5 opponents. The ACC and SEC gain 6 additional conference games while keeping their 4 non-conference games and in-state non-conference rivalries. Together, you get uniform scheduling and everyone gets a 13th game to try to make the playoff, host a home game playoff, or receive a bye week & home quarterfinal game.

With this in addition to an expanded playoff, you can increase bowl eligibility to 7 wins to make a winning record a requirement to bowl again and give slightly more meaningful to make a bowl game. This on average (in theory looking back from 2014-2019) likely results in 72-74 bowl eligible teams each season, and if you placed the 8 eliminated in the NY6 with the 4 semifinalists, you get 46 bowl/playoff games (42 bowls if they don't), which would be my cap. ESPN would be thrilled too because they would get more inventory and be able to replace some lower tier bowls with playoff games.

Lastly, create a 2nd tier of bowl games (9 bowls total) for the CFP Top 25 teams not in the playoff, G5 champs not ranked or in the CFP, and any spots available for the team(s) with the most wins not yet selected and/or highest ranked available. There would be no bowl tie-ins and let the committee create these bowl matchups with the selected teams in those 9 bowls. This gives us better quality bowls and G5 champs a chance at the big boys (I would establish a rule G5 champs wouldn't play each other). Below is how this format would've looked like in 2019

12 Team CFP:
1. LSU (13-0) vs. 8. Wisconsin (10-3) / 9. Florida (10-2)
4. Oklahoma (12-1) vs. 5. Georgia (11-2) / 17. Memphis (12-1)
2. Ohio St. (13-0) vs. 7. Baylor (11-2) / 10. Penn St. (10-2)
3. Clemson (13-0) vs. 6. Oregon (11-2) / 11. Utah (11-2)
(I would consider switching either Oregon and Baylor or Penn St. and Utah to avoid the Oregon-Utah rematch)

2nd Tier Bowl Teams:
12. Auburn (9–3)
13. Alabama (10–2)
14. Michigan (9–3)
15. Notre Dame (10–2)
16. Iowa (9–3)
18. Minnesota (10–2)
19. Boise St. (12–1) (MWC Champs)
20. Appalachian St. (12–1) (Sun Belt Champs)
21. Cincinnati (10–3)
22. USC Trojans (8–4)
23. Navy (10–2)
24. Virginia (9–4)
25. Oklahoma St. (8–4)
Florida Atlantic (10-3) (C-USA Champ)
Miami (OH) (8-5) (MAC Champ)
SMU (10-2, lost to Navy and Memphis)
Air Force (10-2, lost to Boise St. and Navy)
UCF (9-3, lost @ Pittsburgh, @ Cincy, and @ Tulsa all by 1-3 points)
I opted for UCF over Louisiana (10-3, lost to Miss State and App State 2x) but that is my opinion

(06-10-2021 12:19 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

If you see Ross Dellenger's reply to the tweet, the recommendation is a 12 team playoff with the 6 highest ranked conference champions and the 6 highest ranked at-large teams participating. Top 4 ranked conference champions recieve a bye and the next 4 highest ranked teams host the 1st round on campus.

(06-10-2021 07:09 AM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Here’s a break down of who would receive at larges in a 5-1-6 vs 5-1-4 over 2014-2020 using the Committee Rankings:

Big 10: 13 10
SEC: 11 10
ACC: 4 1
PAC 12: 5 1
Big 12: 6 3
ND: 3 3

Both systems net the Big 10 and SEC oodles of at large bids while the other 3 lag behind.

5-1-6 isn’t terrible for the Big 12, but they’d really suffer under 5-1-4.

The PAC 12 and ACC would struggle to get at larges in 5-1-4.

You left out the AAC. UCF would have gotten an at-large a couple of years back, when they were ranked #8, and the MWC was the most highly-ranked conference.

No Jed. UCF would have had an autobid as the 1 in a 5-1-2 in 2017 and 2018. They never would have made it as an at large in the CFP era.

(06-10-2021 12:50 PM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

"They could reach consensus on some other model," Hancock said. "They could reach consensus on this, or they could decide to retain the current format. They could endorse a different model."

It's not going to pass for the reasons I laid out. The ESPN article implies staging Semis on weeknights with the 12-team proposal, otherwise they'd run into the NFL, or they'd have to play with less than 6 days rest between QFs and SFs.

I think we end up with 6 teams with High 3 or 4 conference Champs locked in.

(06-10-2021 02:29 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 12:50 PM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

"They could reach consensus on some other model," Hancock said. "They could reach consensus on this, or they could decide to retain the current format. They could endorse a different model."

It's not going to pass for the reasons I laid out. The ESPN article implies staging Semis on weeknights with the 12-team proposal, otherwise they'd run into the NFL, or they'd have to play with less than 6 days rest between QFs and SFs.

I think we end up with 6 teams with High 3 or 4 conference Champs locked in.

Where are you getting that from? I think you're imposing your own personal beliefs here (as you've stated that you don't like the idea of extending the season further into January or bowls/neutral site games), yet the powers that be clearly don't seem to care about those items.

I had some pretty firm beliefs (mainly P5 auto-bids in any new playoff system), but can admit that if the powers that be are changing course (if only for legal reasons), then they're changing course.

(06-10-2021 03:18 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 02:29 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 12:50 PM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

"They could reach consensus on some other model," Hancock said. "They could reach consensus on this, or they could decide to retain the current format. They could endorse a different model."

It's not going to pass for the reasons I laid out. The ESPN article implies staging Semis on weeknights with the 12-team proposal, otherwise they'd run into the NFL, or they'd have to play with less than 6 days rest between QFs and SFs.

I think we end up with 6 teams with High 3 or 4 conference Champs locked in.

Where are you getting that from? I think you're imposing your own personal beliefs here (as you've stated that you don't like the idea of extending the season further into January or bowls/neutral site games), yet the powers that be clearly don't seem to care about those items.

I had some pretty firm beliefs (mainly P5 auto-bids in any new playoff system), but can admit that if the powers that be are changing course (if only for legal reasons), then they're changing course.

“For legal reasons” is a cop out. Don’t bring that stuff up now. I can go back into archives with the endless debates with you taking the opposite side of this debate when in fact, the legal reasons should have been considered all along, as well as the competitive imbalances such as irrelevant OOC schedules that I discussed ad nauseam.

And I’m not coming off my “belief”… the ONLY scenario where this pans out is if the SF takes place week 18 post Jan 1st QFs… and the site will remain the same for the highest seeds.

They will put the top 2 winning QF teams in a bubble at their respective NY6 QF Bowl sites and the lower two seeds will travel. No way they leave a blank Saturday after NYD open for meaningless bowl games. I doubt this will be proposed however (along with three consecutive neutral sites).

(06-10-2021 01:06 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 07:09 AM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Here’s a break down of who would receive at larges in a 5-1-6 vs 5-1-4 over 2014-2020 using the Committee Rankings:

Big 10: 13 10
SEC: 11 10
ACC: 4 1
PAC 12: 5 1
Big 12: 6 3
ND: 3 3

Both systems net the Big 10 and SEC oodles of at large bids while the other 3 lag behind.

5-1-6 isn’t terrible for the Big 12, but they’d really suffer under 5-1-4.

The PAC 12 and ACC would struggle to get at larges in 5-1-4.

You left out the AAC. UCF would have gotten an at-large a couple of years back, when they were ranked #8, and the MWC was the most highly-ranked conference.

UCF would have had an autobid as the 1 in a 5-1-2 in 2017 and 2018. They never would have made it as an at large in the CFP era.

That is correct, if (as now appears to be the case) it is being proposed that the autobids would go to the "highest ranked conference champions," rather than to the "champions of the highest-ranked conferences."

The above sentence ("UCF would have gotten..."), was written based on prior articles and message board conversations. There had had been weeks of intensive discussion suggesting that it might be the "champion of the highest-ranked G5 conference," rather than the "highest-ranked G5 conference champion" that would be getting the auto-bid.



.....................................................................................................................

The confusion arose from two separate facts:

1) The AAC Commissioner had made several statements that appeared to suggest that the AAC champions might be most likely to receive auto-bids, since the AAC has generally been the highest-ranked G5 conference. It was that, in particular, that made me think that the champion of the highest-ranked G5 conference would be getting the auto-bid.

2) Until today, no one, to my knowledge, has ever suggested the possibility that two G5 conference champions could earn auto-bids, by virtue of being ranked ahead of one of the P5 conferences.

Thus, until today, everyone seems to have assumed that it would be "the champions of the highest-ranked conferences" (the five P5 and one G5 conference champions) that would receive the auto-bids.

But now, for the first time, there is a new consensus that the "highest ranked conference champions," not the "champions of the highest-ranked conferences" would be getting the auto-bids, as several posters have helpfully pointed out today.

Thus, to the astonishment of many, the 2020 auto-bids would have gone to Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, Oklahoma, (#8) Cincinnati, and (#12) Coastal Carolina, with the PAC-12 champion (#25 Oregon) failing to get an auto-bid.
.....................................................................................................................

The issue appears to have become moot now, but What would have happened, had it had been the other way around (the G5 auto-bid going to the champion of the highest-ranked G5 conference), then Fresno State (the MWC champion) would have gotten the auto-bid in 2018, according to the Massey Composite rankings, because the MWC was the highest-ranked G5 conference in 2018, and #8 UCF would have qualified for an auto-bid.

To repeat the point above it now appears, based on a rapidly shifting consensus, that UCF would have gotten the auto-bid because they were the most highly ranked G5 conference champion.


Week 15, 2018 Massey Composite Rankings:

"Rank, Conference:

1. Southeastern
2. Big 12
3. Big 10
4. Atlantic Coast
5. Pac 12
6. FBS Indep.
7. Mountain West (Champion: Fresno State)
8. American Athletic (Champion: UCF)
9. Sun Belt
10. Mid-American
11. Conference USA."

https://masseyratings.com/cf/arch/compare2018-15.htm

.

(06-10-2021 03:27 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 03:18 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 02:29 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 12:50 PM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

"They could reach consensus on some other model," Hancock said. "They could reach consensus on this, or they could decide to retain the current format. They could endorse a different model."

It's not going to pass for the reasons I laid out. The ESPN article implies staging Semis on weeknights with the 12-team proposal, otherwise they'd run into the NFL, or they'd have to play with less than 6 days rest between QFs and SFs.

I think we end up with 6 teams with High 3 or 4 conference Champs locked in.

Where are you getting that from? I think you're imposing your own personal beliefs here (as you've stated that you don't like the idea of extending the season further into January or bowls/neutral site games), yet the powers that be clearly don't seem to care about those items.

I had some pretty firm beliefs (mainly P5 auto-bids in any new playoff system), but can admit that if the powers that be are changing course (if only for legal reasons), then they're changing course.

“For legal reasons” is a cop out. Don’t bring that stuff up now. I can go back into archives with the endless debates with you taking the opposite side of this debate when in fact, the legal reasons should have been considered all along, as well as the competitive imbalances such as irrelevant OOC schedules that I discussed ad nauseam.

And I’m not coming off my “belief”… the ONLY scenario where this pans out is if the SF takes place week 18 post Jan 1st QFs… and the site will remain the same for the highest seeds.

They will put the top 2 winning QF teams in a bubble at their respective NY6 QF Bowl sites and the lower two seeds will travel. No way they leave a blank Saturday after NYD open for meaningless bowl games. I doubt this will be proposed however (along with three consecutive neutral sites).

Yes, I absolutely have been insisting that there would be P5 auto-bids. No doubt about that one. I may very well be wrong there.

I'm just not understanding your logic/skepticism regarding the timing. Here's a potential setup:

First Round - on-campus 1 week after the conference championship games

Quarterfinals - bowls on or around New Year's Day

Semifinals - the next Thursday and Friday nights (exclusive time slots) at least one week after the Quarterfinals

Final - the next Monday (possibly MLK Day in many years) at least one week after the Semifinals

(06-10-2021 03:51 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yes, I absolutely have been insisting that there would be P5 auto-bids. No doubt about that one. I may very well be wrong there.

I'm just not understanding your logic/skepticism regarding the timing. Here's a potential setup:

First Round - on-campus 1 week after the conference championship games

Quarterfinals - bowls on or around New Year's Day

Semifinals - the next Thursday and Friday nights (exclusive time slots) at least one week after the Quarterfinals

Final - the next Monday (possibly MLK Day in many years) at least one week after the Semifinals

From Nicole's Quoted Tweet in the other thread:

"CFP working group was not tasked with deciding which bowl games should be part of format but did recommend that if traditional bowls host games, teams would be assigned to their traditional bowls for quarterfinal games with priority going to the higher-seeded team."

I don't know who this working group is, but I guarantee you they did not have a sit down with any Presidents or Bowl people about logistics. This was a proof of concept meeting at best. They are not thinking the logistics through... yet.

Wait till the Rose and Sugar Bowl people get involved. They have a serious problem called the NFL playoffs. In fact, they have less than 6 days from NYD QF extravaganza to the last remaining open Saturday of the month before Saturday is locked up for two consecutive weekends (WC and Divisional weekend).

SFs the following Thursday and Friday night in mid January would precede MLK weekend, so now you'd be looking at the NCG late January. Or you do a SF double header on MLK day itself (fans will be burnt out from Sunday pro football however).

The problem is not solvable, because if you separate QF's from NYD, Rose and Sugar become relegated Bowls that won't even be in the rotation. We know this won't happen for a fact.

Think about it from an inventory perspective.

Currently there are 7 games, the NY6 including semifinals and NC game.

With the 6-6 model there would be 4 first round games, 4 quarterfinals, 2 semifinals and 1 NC. That makes a total 11 games.

If you can add also to this list 4 access bowls for the champs that don't make the playoff that gives you 15 games in the package.

In a typical year teams ranked #10 to #11 will be left out of the 6-6 model by lower ranked champions. They'll want to play in a NYD bowl. Plus a P5 champion outside of top 6 champs will want to be guaranteed an access bowl. You can only completely guarantee that if you have 4 of them.

(06-10-2021 05:23 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Think about it from an inventory perspective.

Currently there are 7 games, the NY6 including semifinals and NC game.

With the 6-6 model there would be 4 first round games, 4 quarterfinals, 2 semifinals and 1 NC. That makes a total 11 games.

If you can add also to this list 4 access bowls for the champs that don't make the playoff that gives you 15 games in the package.

In a typical year teams ranked #10 to #11 will be left out of the 6-6 model by lower ranked champions. They'll want to play in a NYD bowl. Plus a P5 champion outside of top 6 champs will want to be guaranteed an access bowl. You can only completely guarantee that if you have 4 of them.

The access Bowls are useless. The Peach and Fiesta need to join a rotation with the Orange and Cotton to alternate QFs. The compromise could be Orange Rose and Sugar getting locked in as QF every year on the 1st which I’ve argued will not happen.

(06-10-2021 04:11 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 03:51 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yes, I absolutely have been insisting that there would be P5 auto-bids. No doubt about that one. I may very well be wrong there.

I'm just not understanding your logic/skepticism regarding the timing. Here's a potential setup:

First Round - on-campus 1 week after the conference championship games

Quarterfinals - bowls on or around New Year's Day

Semifinals - the next Thursday and Friday nights (exclusive time slots) at least one week after the Quarterfinals

Final - the next Monday (possibly MLK Day in many years) at least one week after the Semifinals

From Nicole's Quoted Tweet in the other thread:

"CFP working group was not tasked with deciding which bowl games should be part of format but did recommend that if traditional bowls host games, teams would be assigned to their traditional bowls for quarterfinal games with priority going to the higher-seeded team."

I don't know who this working group is, but I guarantee you they did not have a sit down with any Presidents or Bowl people about logistics. This was a proof of concept meeting at best. They are not thinking the logistics through... yet.

Wait till the Rose and Sugar Bowl people get involved. They have a serious problem called the NFL playoffs. In fact, they have less than 6 days from NYD QF extravaganza to the last remaining open Saturday of the month before Saturday is locked up for two consecutive weekends (WC and Divisional weekend).

SFs the following Thursday and Friday night in mid January would precede MLK weekend, so now you'd be looking at the NCG late January. Or you do a SF double header on MLK day itself (fans will be burnt out from Sunday pro football however).

The problem is not solvable, because if you separate QF's from NYD, Rose and Sugar become relegated Bowls that won't even be in the rotation. We know this won't happen for a fact.

You got a fixed mind paradigm. Plenty of ways around it.