(04-25-2021 11:15 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 01:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  That's one reason I think 5-1-2 won't pass. As I've explained, had 5-1-2 been in effect the past seven years of the CFP, AAC teams like UCF, Cincy, Memphis and Houston would have more trips to the playoffs than nearby SEC and other P5 such as Florida, Kentucky, FSU, Miami, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Tennessee and Texas.

The AAC stands the most to benefit from 5-1-2, and the AAC is mostly in the footprint of the SEC and ACC, and also Texas, which brings Texas in to play. I doubt they want that. As for the B1G, under 5-1-2 Western Michigan would have more playoff trips than Michigan. In 2019, Wisconsin would have missed the playoffs to make room for Memphis

A 5-1-2 model would IMO greatly enhance the relative stature of the AAC, and often at the expense of the SEC and Texas. Does Texas want little brothers like Houston and SMU being able to make the playoffs beating out just other G5 teams - most years just winning the AAC - while they have to get past Oklahoma every year? Does Florida want UCF going to the playoffs twice in three years for beating out Memphis and Cincy while they have to tangle with LSU, Alabama etc.?

Probably not, IMO.

Most years of the CFP, the team that would get booted out of an 8-team playoff had it been "straight 8" or "5+3" to make room for a G5 team would have been an SEC or B1G team. I think they are likely to be aware of that.

This is another reason why a 5-2-1 is more likely if there is a play-in game for the "1", since by spreading the benefit of the "1" more, it dilutes the benefit to the AAC. It also means that no Go5 CCG is ever a "for practical purposes play-in game to the CFP", so maintains the status of A5 CCG over Go5 CCG.

And, of course, the incremental upgrades in access the Go5 has gained over time, from the start of the BCS system, have been gained by working together. By spreading the benefit around, it also provides more encouragement to the Go5 to continue to work together.

A kind of "reducing the downsides" appeal of the play-in format for media partners is it reduces the audience impact on the CFP of the "1", because many more people will watch the play-in game than would have watched the contenders regular season games or Go5 CCG's, and the "1" will automatically come into the CFP having won in front of what is likely it's biggest audience of the season.

And of course, it does further open the door for prospective media partners to lobby to have the play-in between the number one ranked Go5 school and the highest ranked among remaining Go5 champions and independents not picked for an at-large spot.

I prefer straight 8, but I agree that a G5 play-in game would make 5-1-2 for the G5 more palatable to the P5.

What might make it even more palatable is if the play-in game were between the top G5 champ and the highest-ranked team that they would otherwise replace, which in all likelihood would be a P5 team. Meaning if we had this scenario as the top 8 ...

Alabama
Clemson
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Georgia
Wisconsin
USC
Florida

... and then top-rated G5 team was #13 Memphis, Florida would play Memphis as a play-in game. This not only gives one of the P5 another chance to get a team in, it also addresses a concern P5 have with a G5 autobid, that a G5 could get that spot without ever having proven themselves against a top P5 team. Win that play-in game, and you have done so.