(05-03-2021 12:20 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 10:39 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 02:48 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 11:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 11:32 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Straight 8/12/16 are all probably all a no go. The G5 and the weaker P5s are going to want it set in stone that they have access and will be represented in the field.

The one thing that I think favors a "straight" system is that it is free of anti-trust or other legal issues. Give the P5 autobids but give one bid for the G5 as a whole, and you are still legally vulnerable.

So I think "straight" still has a pretty good chance.

If we were talking 8 vs. 12 there would be more pressure to have autobids.

But at 12 if you can't make the cut for that....simply you're team isn't that good.

Here’s the thing: it doesn’t matter.

I’ve said it all along: expansion talk is entirely about 100% guaranteed P5 auto-bids. Period. Any “straight ranking” system points to just keeping the current top 4 system.

It’s not about whether a P5 champ outside of the top 12 is deserving enough.

It’s not about whether being one of the “top 6 conference champs” or “top 7 conference champs” is good enough.

99% of the time isn’t good enough. The fact that the P5 didn’t ask for this on a top 4 playoff where you can’t have auto-bids anyway is absolutely irrelevant. If you have a playoff large enough to accommodate all P5 champs, then they’re getting those auto-bids. They’re not expanding the playoff to leave things up to chance in a subject committee room yet again.

Last year’s Oregon team as a lower-ranked Pac-12 champ is a perfect example. That’s *exactly* why the P5 will need auto-bids in a playoff expansion. That’s the whole point of auto-bid protection - they don’t need the protection when the champ is already in the top 4/8/12, but when it’s outside of it. That’s a *feature* to the P5 instead of a bug.

Now, I get that some fans might not like this or want this or believe that it’s fair. I’m just saying that this is the motivation: guarantees, guarantees, guarantees. That’s why the Super League was proposed in European soccer - a 99% chance of the top level wasn’t good enough even for the richest professional sports teams in the entire world. That extra 1% guarantee is what it’s all about for those in power. Downside protection in a bad year is always worth more than shooting the moon in a great year on the upside.

But the protection the autobid is to afford in a 12 team system is the right to appear on the road against the 5th ranked CFP team in December.

Its a totally different argument for autobids in a 8 team format.

1) The bar of Top 8 is significantly higher than Top 12. There is real concern of getting left out of 8 if you're the PAC or the AAC.

2) The autobid guarantees a spot for you're team in a NYD bowl game. Champ finishes 15th and they get a nice reward of a NYD bowl.

Its all about risk vs. reward. In a 12 team format risk to make the playoff is down with only a Top 12 ranking required. Reward is also down because as the 12th team you'll have to play a mid December game on the road.

If the decision was to go out to 16 with the round of 16 played in the bowl games then yes then the 99% to 100% argument becomes more sensible since inclusion would in that case be a reward.

5-1-6 format doesn't make sense. The G5 under the current CFP arrangement have a deal where 1 and only 1 G5 champion will receive a berth to a NYD bowl. At the time there was a question as to how good the G5 would be with all the realignment etc. so they were only deemed worthy of one slot. That slot though belongs to the access bowls, it doesn't belong to the playoff.

Why would the G5 agree to limit themselves to one guaranteed but only one playoff team? What if you have a year where the AAC, MWC and SBC all have Top 12 champions? Only the highest rated of the 3 gets in the 12 team field?

The 6 piece makes no sense either because its stated in a way that P5 will get 11 teams in each year. It is whomever is in the Top 12 of the rankings. That can be BYU, Army, ND, Liberty ect.

P5 autobids are in direct conflict with autobids for the NYD games. As it stands the SEC, XII, BIG, ACC, PAC commit their champions to NYD games and if they have a champ in the Top 4 they then send #2 to an NYD bowl. If the playoff had autobids that means the Rose becomes B1G #2 vs. PAC #2 officially but more like B1G #4 vs. PAC #3 in reality. The entire system collapses into itself because those big payouts for the Rose, Sugar etc. are based on having the champs under contract.

Having the existence of the dual bowl/playoff system is a different dynamic than what you have in European soccer because the P5 payouts are tied to individual bowl arrangements not the playoff system but its the playoff system which dictates the post season format. A straight 12 keeps the bowls at their maximum value.

In 5-1-6, the G5 can still snag at large bids (there’s 6 after all) but they are going to get a minimum of 1 due to the autobid.

5-1-6 is pretty sensible and pragmatic. I think it makes a lot of folks happy and should prove profitable.

The 4 bowls who are semi final sites are going to be fine. They are getting a team in the top 4, and more times than not, it’ll be from a conference that had traditional ties to that bowl.