(04-26-2021 11:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 10:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 05:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 05:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 05:20 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  I see no reason to go beyond 8.

I think a consensus favorite is the 5-2-1 formula, with a NY6 forming the quarter finals, and the championship game pushed back a week. Semi finals are in a TBD situation, but I think FTT is correct that the best solution is site provided by the highest two seeds to win the first round game (can be their home stadium or a near enough NFL stadium, so cold weather teams can play in domes).

I suspect a majority also like the qualifying game pitting the top two non-power conference teams (ND counts as power), played the week of the Army-Navy game.

Now is that on the exploration team's agenda? Don't know. But anyone with a media platform some of them might look at it would be great if you put that out as a popular idea on the forum. Doesn't mean any of the real players buy in, just that it's a fan idea.

So far there hasn't been much reason to have 4 schools. Most year's the semis have been blowouts and the final two were pretty clear cut. Expanding the playoffs will demean the regular season and having a regular season that counts sells tickets.

Thats a popular belief---but I dont think there's all that much substance to it. The truth is---we dont know what we dont know. If I remember correctly, the #1 ranked team has only won the CFP once. The fourth place team won the national championship in just the second year of the new formats existence. That means Ohio St---who wouldnt have even participated in the 2-team BCS playoff--won the national championship. Thus, looking back on the BCS era---one has to wonder how many times did a team claim a national championship that they might not have won in the CFP era? I see no reason to think the same thing is not true for the CFP era vs an 8-team version of the playoff. Once expansion occurs, I suspect it wont take long for #5, #6, #7, or #8 seeded team to win a national championship.

Well, in seven years of the CFP, the national champ has been one of the top two seeds, what would have been the BCS matchup, 5 out of 7 years. The exceptions being 2014 (Ohio State) and 2017 (Alabama).

So 2/7 is not that high a percentage, IMO. And, if we expand to 8, we'd expect diminishing returns on it happening outside the top 4. It's one thing for one top-four team to be better than another. It's another for a top 5-8 team to really be best. That's much less likely.

And one reason is, whereas 1-4 is often a guessing game as far seedings because the teams are unlikely to have played (e.g., 12-0 Clemson vs 12-0 Alabama vs 12-0 Ohio State, we don't have direct evidence of who is better so who gets seeded higher is more of a guess), with 5-8, we often have game results vs higher ranked teams. E.g., in 2019, Georgia was #5 - but we had just seen them lose big to #1 LSU in the SEC title game. Wisconsin was #8 - and they had lost to #2 Ohio State. Baylor was #7 and they had lost to #4 Oklahoma.

So that gives us a lot more certainty about how good those 5-8 teams are relative to other playoff teams compared to seeds 1 - 4.

Plus, there's a reason that JR's position is "popular" - most of the semifinal games have been blowouts or easy wins. That does not suggest we need more teams in the playoffs. All it suggests is that about 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 years, the CFP mistakenly seeds the #2 team as the #4 team, or vice-versa.

Finally, as to the G5 autobid aspect - the G5 teams have lost their last three NY6 games. Overall, G5 champs are 3-4 in NY6 games, games played against P5 that were clearly outside the playoff mix. That doesn't suggest the need for G5 involvement, at least not at the "auto" level.

Exactly. In other words---the committee was wrong. In the BCS days---the data suggests that the BCS didnt even have the right team in the playoff about a third of the time. The ONLY way we know that is because we expanded the field to 4. Your explanation that the seedings are off because the teams havent played each other----well---yeah---Of course. Thats the EXACT same reason the rankings will be off (apparently about one-third of the time). As I said before to JR---we dont know what we dont know. Yes---I absolutely believe a 5 through 8 seed will be less likley to win the championship (thats the way it works in most every sport!). But I also believe it probably wont take very long for a 5-8 seed to win it. We all know eventually one of those lower 4 seeds is going to break through.

Eh, "we don't know what we don't know" can be carried too far.

It's one thing to say we don't know whether a 12-0 Alabama is better than a 12-0 Clemson. It's another to say the same about 12-0 Alabama vs a #8 seed 10-2 Wisconsin. That, we pretty much do know.

Also, when expanding a playoff, you can create situations where the best team doesn't win, just due to random forces. Imagine if this season we had had an 8-team playoff, 5-1-2, and #1 Alabama played #8 G5 rep Cincy in the quarters. Alabama wins, but Mac Jones and Devonta Smith and a couple key defensive guys go out with injuries. Then a hobbled Alabama plays Notre Dame in the semis and loses, and Ohio State beats ND for the title. Did the best team win? No, Alabama was the "real" best team, but forcing them to play an extra game allowed for bad luck and random chance to knock them out.

The 8-team playoff produced a distorted result compared with the actual CFP. I can see that happening a lot.