(06-20-2021 11:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 02:33 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  What the PAC-12 wants is a guaranteed spot ... rather than "Top 6", they want "P5 + top non-Contract conference champion". None of this possibility that if the PAC-12 has a really bad season (or has only one really good team which happens to be on postseason ban for how they became so good), the PAC-12 is Champion #7 and left out of the CFP. They are one of the conferences where the guaranteed spot for the champion adds relatively more value to the CCG.

And after that, if they are not in the Top 4 champions, they would rather be in the first round game that has the winner going to the Rose Bowl.

Their first preference would likely be johnbragg's:

(06-20-2021 12:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Earn a bye? Naah. Rose Bowl Quarterfinal has dibs on any B1G and PAC teams in the Quarterfinals. Why not? ...

IOW, have the Big Ten versus the Pac-12 champion in the Rose Bowl if both are in the quarterfinal round, no matter what their seeding, which would mean that when they both have the bye, one of the Quartfinals would feature two first round winners, totally messing up the nice pretty bracket that Notre Dame, the BigXII and the SEC, SEC came up with (and ALSO have a guaranteed CFP spot, messing up the outside shot of two non-Contract Bowl conferences in the CFP that the MWC representative was able to wrangle).

It goes without saying that that is the version that the Rose Bowl would pay the most for, which would then mean that is the version that on average gives the PAC-12 the most Contract Bowl money.

I think the PAC is more likely to get concessions on the Rose Bowl-B1GvsPAC quarterfinal than on getting a guaranteed spot. The committee said they decided pretty early on on G5 access, and that AQ had picked up a negative odor.

Realistically, the PAC is never going to miss a 6+6 playoff. 2020 doesn't count. So there's no money at stake there, and the PAC will have no backup on that point.

The Rose Bowl tradition, on the other hand, IS monetizable. So the PAC will have Big Ten backup, plus whatever stroke the Rose Bowl has as current CFP contract partners.

(The Fiesta and Peach Bowls, on the other hand, have no reason at all to cooperate with the new system.)

(06-20-2021 06:26 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  B1G vs PAC is dead with this model. Period. You can’t reseed and make an exception for a 2 vs 4 or 1 vs 5 in a QF game.

Sure you can. They're already making an "exception" when a non-conference-champion is in the top 4.

Quote:It throws everything off.

So call a waaaahmbulance. Oh, wait, better not, because the purity of the bracket doesn't generate any revenue, so you can't afford the waaahmbulance ride.

Quote:At that point, the plus 4 model would work best because you’d take all the traditional tie ins (hell, a 1 vs 2 is possible before the SF) and then reseed 1-4 post NYD bowls. I don’t feel that is viable either because of the calendar crunch.

That would have been a viable model, but I don't think you get the 12-team-playoff genie back in the bottle. (I strongly suspect that you're getting 12 because they can't put the "12 teams get to go to major/ NY6 bowls" genie back in the bottle)

(06-20-2021 06:39 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 06:26 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  B1G vs PAC is dead with this model. Period. You can’t reseed and make an exception for a 2 vs 4 or 1 vs 5 in a QF game. It throws everything off. ...

Of course it throws everything off ... having a neat bracket is not something the PAC-12 is likely to worry about.

Of course, it would not be necessary to reseed ... the bracket could be built around it. But it would drive the OCD among football fandom nuts.

Indeed, the Big XII and SEC could have a different set of terms on their Bowl contract, the higher ranked hosting the Sugar Bowl, the other champion hosting its own quarterfinal if they have a bye but seeded into the Sugar Bowl bracket if they are in the first round.

And once everyone is trying to angle for the bowl they want, the ACC could have a contract to have their champion host in the Orange Bowl if they have a bye and be bracketed into the Orange Bowl QF if they are in the first round.

I can see people objecting that it turns the bracket into a mess, like a committee started out trying to design a horse and ended up with a camel ... but looking at some of the different cobbled together systems that have been put into place over the years, I hesitate to suggest it is not possible.

It's not even that difficult. If you decide that seeding the bracket is less important than the P5 conferences getting paid for major bowl ties, then it's quite easy.

Rose Bowl pays the B1G and PAC, gets priority on B1G and PAC teams in the quarterfinals. (Maybe dibs on champions only, maybe dibs on any available team from that league).
Sugar Bowl pays the SEC, Cotton Bowl pays the Big 12, Orange Bowl pays the ACC.
And, in my little fan fiction here, the commitee has leeway to flip teams in the seedings to avoid rematches where possible, or at least delay them into later rounds.

Lets see how this plays out using some past seasons, CFP rankings.
2019, since 2020 doesn't count
4 top champions: Ohio State, LSU, Oklahoma, Clemson
5-12 Georgia, Oregon, Baylor, Wisconsin, Florida, Penn State, Utah, Memphis (#17)
Committee flips Utah and Penn State to avoid an Oregon-Utah first round game.
If Oregon beats Penn State, they go to the Rose Bowl.
If Oregon loses, and Utah beats Baylor, Utah goes to the Rose Bowl.
If Oregon and UTah both lose in the first round, then the Rose Bowl gets whoever.
(Georgia and Florida do NOT go to the Sugar Bowl.)

2018. 4 top champions: Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma, Ohio State (#5)
5-12: Notre Dame (#4), Georgia, Michigan, UCF©, Washington©, FLorida, LSU, Penn State.
Rose Bowl gets Ohio State, and Washington if they beat UCF.
(Note: Georgia-LSU in the first round, and Alabama-Florida in the Sugar Bowl, would not be rematches. For what it's worth)

2017. 1-4 Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia, Ohio State(#5)
5-12. Alabama (#4), Wisconsin, Auburn, USC ©, Penn State, Miami, Washington, UCF (#12)
Rose Bowl gets Ohio STate and either USC (if they beat Penn State), or Washington (if USC loses and Washington beats Wisconsin), or they get an at-large.

2016. Here's the year it gets wild and hairy.
EDIT: It gets very hairy--this is the year that OSU went to the playoff without playing in the Big Ten CCG

1-4. Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Washington.
5-12. Penn State, Michigan, Oklahoma ©, Wisconsin, USC, Colorado, FSU, Western Michigan ©

So the Rose Bowl is [s]Ohio State Penn State[b] vs Washington, champion vs champion.
Sugar gets Alabama, Orange gets Clemson.
Then we look at the first round games.
WMU @ [b]Ohio STate, FSU @ Michigan, Colorado @ Oklahoma, USC @ Wisconsin.
If Oklahoma wins, they go to the Cotton Bowl.
If Oklahoma loses, the Cotton Bowl doesn't get a Big 12 team this year.

Actually, it's not the end of the world at all.

There's plenty of leeway in the system to make concessions to the Big Ten-PAC-12 Rose Bowl coalition, IMO.

All that is cute… yet it is already clear the CFP committee could care less about these “priority” bowl tie-ins when the Rose is a CFP game. They took FSU at #3 vs Oregon when #4 OSU could have been justified to preserve B1G vs PAC. The committee as presently constructed will not disadvantage or advantage teams by skewing the seeds to preserve traditional tie ins. It has to stick to a transparent metric defined as the top 6+6 in the country. So this effectively kills the B1G/PAC Rose Bowl affiliation by at least 50%, aside from the rare years where seeds and tradition miraculously align. Will the Presidents and the Rose sacrifice this? We may find out this Tuesday.

I frankly think they would sacrifice, but having QF games on NYD is too late in the year and I think the Presidents ultimately shut this down before the bowls can take matters into their own hands.