(04-21-2021 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 01:54 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 12:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 01:49 AM)hammannja Wrote:  Within the discussion of college football play-off expansion, the goal of both the Big10 and the SEC may be to increase the chances of getting additional Big10 and SEC teams into the playoffs while not watering down the per game pay-offs. Nothing more, nothing less. It is likely not about some notion of access or fairness. A G-5 auto-bid might reasonably be perceived as counter-productive to their leagues' goals and picking an expanded format that removes this option as a possibility might be where the two most important conferences in college football settle. And if that's where these two conferences settle, I suspect that is where expansion will settle.

Totally unfair, yes. But the commissioners are charged by their Boards of Governors with thinking about the interests of their member schools, not the interests of college football as a whole. The same can be said for Aresco.

I tend to think that is correct, and it is a point that gets missed around here. On these boards, the overwhelming belief seems to be that an 8-team playoff with a 5-1-2 structure, one that guarantees an autobid to a G5 team, is the most likely outcome of playoff expansion. It's also a favorite of sportswriters, because it allows them to take a "populist stance" against the perceived established powers of the sport.

But I have my doubts, for the reason you expressed - that may not maximize the benefits to the SEC and B1G, the two 800-pound gorillas of college football.

That gets missed on football boards because 5-1-2 would obviously benefit the G5, and the AAC likely most of all, and of course on this forum and others around here, G5 and AAC fans tend to predominate. But that doesn't mean this view reflects the views of those who will make the decisions.

Seems like the Big 10 and SEC (the SEC at least) would be the most likely recipients of the 2 in that scenario. Doesn't seem like two more at-large opportunities would hurt them. The recipient last year would have been Texas A&M or Florida(assuming Oklahoma and USC are shifted into the mix with titles).

That's one way to look at it. Another is that a guaranteed spot for the G5 - or for any of the other P5 for that matter - could take a spot away from yet another SEC or B1G team.

Under 5-1-2, and using CFP rankings as a guide, in 2020, Florida would have missed the playoffs due to the PAC champ getting in. In 2019, Wisconsin would have missed the playoffs due to the G5 team (Memphis) getting in.

Those are sports those conferences may not want to give up, and thus prefer a straight-8 model or 5-3 model.

But with respect to Wisconsin---the Pac12 WOULD favor it because the Pac-12 champ would have been INCLUDED. The fact is, every P5 has been left out except the SEC. From a P5 standpoint, there will be 3 more slots open to P5's EVERY year than there are now. The problem the P5 has is the current argument that "the G5 is eligible for the playoff" will be dead after 12 years of the Selection Committee saying the undefeated G5's simply dont have the strength of schedule to be ranked that high. Effectively, the structure of the CFP is saying the G5 is not eligible. Furthermore, making it a 8 team playoff---while leaving the selection committee heavily tilted in favor of P5 representation simply makes it more likely that the 9th ranking slot will become the new G5 "glass ceiling" as promoting a G5 above that rank will cost a P5 conference a slot.

The problem is there is no real way to determine relative strength when a team wins all its games against a weaker schedule. All we know is they were better than everyone they played. What we HAVE seen is that when tested against top 10 P5 team's that did play a tough P5 schedule---these undefeated G5 teams are generally quite competitive and quite often win. Thus, in light of the fact G5's can do little to make their schedules look like a P5 schedule---and in light of fact that the top G5 representative when tested has proven worthy far more often than not---there is really no logical argument to continue with any system that will essentially forever lock out the top finisher of literally half of the FBS conferences.

Giving each P5 champion a playoff slot and awarding the top G5 champ a playoff slot (effectively treating the entire 65 member G5 the same as one power conference) may not be the perfect answer---but its far more reasonable and equitable than the current system. To me---its the only logical compromise that makes much sense.

I like a 6 team playoff with the top G-6 (Cincinnati) in play. The format of a bye for the top two teams means that the top G-6 (six seed) will be paired up against the three seed. Beating the three seed and advancing to playing the two seed would be a nice path to playing in the championship game.