So it sounds like a lot of us would be OK with this system:

-8 team playoff

-P5 champs get AQ.

-Final 3 AL decided by committee with no limits on conference qualification

-One "buster" slot guaranteed to the best G5 team if they meet certain ranking/SOS criteria.

(12-16-2013 06:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 04:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 03:38 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 02:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  JRsec - Kudos to you for being one of the relatively few SEC fans that seems to take conference championships of *everyone* seriously and not looking for a way to get as many SEC teams into the playoff as possible.

While admittedly an SEC fan, I don't look for ways to get as many SEC teams in as possible. To the contrary, I would prefer a system with no playoff or a plus one at most. But if a playoff is to be -- and it is -- I would rather the best teams be made available for it, not just the ones whose schedules were such that they were able to breeze through a list of G5 teams. For example, any playoff that incorporated the system advocated by you and JR, Oregon, Ohio State, Alabama and Oklahoma would all be excluded while Louisiana-Lafayette (8-4 with no P5 wins), Fresno State (11-1 with no P5 games played), Bowling Green (10-3 with no P5 wins) and Rice (10-3, 1-1 against P5) would make the playoffs. I have a hard time believing that any of those four warrant inclusion over the previously mentioned four simply because they were able to successfully navigate a much easier schedule.

I agree with you. Under my system, I'd want the 5 power conference champs plus Alabama, Ohio State and Mizzou this year. I don't think G5 champs should automatically get in unless they are a top 8 team (where I think it's fair that a G5 champ that would have made the playoff of there was a top 8 playoff without auto-bids doesn't get shut out because a lower ranked power conference team got an auto-bid). My critique is more about fans (many of them from the SEC) that don't give credit to other *power* conference champs (much less G5 champs) at all. To me, winning a power conference is a pretty massive accomplishment that is controlled on the field and they should be included in an 8-team playoff regardless of the whims of a committee or rankings.

I agree with most of what you have said--but I do think the G5 slot in an 8-game playoff should be guaranteed. That takes away the temptation and bias of selective tinkering by the selection committee. There will be 5 power conference champs that will automatically advance. As even you have admitted---over the course of a season---winning any conference is often an under appreciated accomplishment. Well, we are discussing tossing 5 conference champs aside yearly unless we feel there might be a reason not to. And given the playoff field is so small, there will always be log jam as to who #8 is.

I don't think it is unreasonable to allow the top champ for the other 5 conferences a direct AQ path to the playoffs. Otherwise 63 regular season schedules have zero meaning. If the point is to make the regular season meaningful---well---this single move makes the regular season meaningful for nearly half of FBS. That's good for the sport.

Essentially, we utilize one slot to treat the entire G5 as a single super conference. That still leaves 2 at-large slots---which guarantees that the #1 and #2 ranked teams will always be involved in the playoff regardless of CCG upsets. No limit per conferences. After the champions, whoever gets in, gets in---regardless of conference affiliation.

They won't give an autbid to the G5. They'll have a path that requires a certain ranking as well as being the conference champ.

The whole 8 team tournament isn't as easy to achieve as people make it out to be. It is almost impossible to do in the context of the current bowl system. Fanbases aren't going to fly across the country 3 times. Three games on neutral sites won't work. The alternative would be to do the quarterfinals at home sites and semis in the bowls. But that destroys the current bowl system.

The Rose Bowl can payout 40 million a year to the BigTen and Pac12 because they know that game will generate enough revenue to do so. They can't guarentee that a semifinal between Auburn and say Oklahoma State will generate that much revenue. Then there is the issue of less time to plan travel and the fact that sponsoring a semifinal is not the same thing as sponsoring the Rose Bowl, so sponsorship revenue would likely go down. And why would the Pac12 and BigTen destroy that revenue source anyway?

An 8 team playoff would have to generate a hell of a lot more revenue than the 4 team playoff for it to be worth it financially for the power conferences. What do the contract bowls payout? I think it's 190 million a year, that payout is not part of the playoff payout that each conference gets.

I'm not arguing for or against an 8 team tournament. In most ways I'm in favor of it, along the lines of 5 autobids, 3 at larges, with one of those at larges being available to G5 that meet established criteria. But it's a lot trickier to make work than people make it out to be.

(12-16-2013 07:19 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  The Rose Bowl can payout 40 million a year to the BigTen and Pac12 because they know that game will generate enough revenue to do so. They can't guarentee that a semifinal between Auburn and say Oklahoma State will generate that much revenue.

Under the format that starts next season, the Rose Bowl could already get a Auburn-Ok St semifinal, once every three years. That's built into the system, along with the money paid out, the sponsorship deals, etc.

Wouldn't be a problem to have the round of 8 games at the home site of the higher seed. Play those games on the third Saturday in December, followed by the semis on Dec 31/Jan 1 and the final a week or two after that.

(12-16-2013 07:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 07:19 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  The Rose Bowl can payout 40 million a year to the BigTen and Pac12 because they know that game will generate enough revenue to do so. They can't guarentee that a semifinal between Auburn and say Oklahoma State will generate that much revenue.

Under the format that starts next season, the Rose Bowl could already get a Auburn-Ok St semifinal, once every three years. That's built into the system, along with the money paid out, the sponsorship deals, etc.

Wouldn't be a problem to have the round of 8 games at the home site of the higher seed. Play those games on the third Saturday in December, followed by the semis on Dec 31/Jan 1 and the final a week or two after that.

You are way oversimplifying it. So if the semis are the Bowls, which two bowls? And now you're talking about every year, not just every third year. The payout was determined after the 4 team playoff was created, we don't know what it would be in the context of an 8 team playoff.

It's simple to create an 8 team tournament if you do away with the bowls. It's not simple at all if you try to keep them.

(12-12-2013 09:25 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I am sure that the non-bias committee will be fair in picking the playoff teams. All those years of the bias BCS will be erased with the perfection of the playoffs.

We can hope that with four to pick, they'll definitely include the top two. The hope with eight would be that they would definitely include the top four. And if they can do that, then that's good enough. Whether the "real" #7 team was left out in favor of the "real" #9 team is much less of a problem then whether the "real" #2 team is left out in favor of the "real" #3 team.

(12-16-2013 08:11 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 07:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 07:19 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  The Rose Bowl can payout 40 million a year to the BigTen and Pac12 because they know that game will generate enough revenue to do so. They can't guarentee that a semifinal between Auburn and say Oklahoma State will generate that much revenue.

Under the format that starts next season, the Rose Bowl could already get a Auburn-Ok St semifinal, once every three years. That's built into the system, along with the money paid out, the sponsorship deals, etc.

Wouldn't be a problem to have the round of 8 games at the home site of the higher seed. Play those games on the third Saturday in December, followed by the semis on Dec 31/Jan 1 and the final a week or two after that.

You are way oversimplifying it. So if the semis are the Bowls, which two bowls? And now you're talking about every year, not just every third year. The payout was determined after the 4 team playoff was created, we don't know what it would be in the context of an 8 team playoff.

It's simple to create an 8 team tournament if you do away with the bowls. It's not simple at all if you try to keep them.

It's not complicated. Rotate the semifinal sites as they will starting next season.

The bowls won't like becoming less relevant as the playoff expands, but the basketball NIT didn't like becoming less relevant over time, either. There are consequences to any kind of change.

(12-16-2013 10:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 08:11 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 07:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 07:19 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  The Rose Bowl can payout 40 million a year to the BigTen and Pac12 because they know that game will generate enough revenue to do so. They can't guarentee that a semifinal between Auburn and say Oklahoma State will generate that much revenue.

Under the format that starts next season, the Rose Bowl could already get a Auburn-Ok St semifinal, once every three years. That's built into the system, along with the money paid out, the sponsorship deals, etc.

Wouldn't be a problem to have the round of 8 games at the home site of the higher seed. Play those games on the third Saturday in December, followed by the semis on Dec 31/Jan 1 and the final a week or two after that.

You are way oversimplifying it. So if the semis are the Bowls, which two bowls? And now you're talking about every year, not just every third year. The payout was determined after the 4 team playoff was created, we don't know what it would be in the context of an 8 team playoff.

It's simple to create an 8 team tournament if you do away with the bowls. It's not simple at all if you try to keep them.

It's not complicated. Rotate the semifinal sites as they will starting next season.

The bowls won't like becoming less relevant as the playoff expands, but the basketball NIT didn't like becoming less relevant over time, either. There are consequences to any kind of change.

If you have a first round of playoffs, then the bowls, the non semifinals will have extremely low attendance and ratings. From what I've read, there was no additional money by doing an expanded playoff in that manner. Supposedly they ran the proposal by the networks and that was what they were told.

It's not impossible that the Big12 collapses and those schools are all absorbed by the other 4 leagues. That might make a playoff that incorporates the bowls possible.

(12-16-2013 10:38 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 08:11 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 07:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 07:19 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  The Rose Bowl can payout 40 million a year to the BigTen and Pac12 because they know that game will generate enough revenue to do so. They can't guarentee that a semifinal between Auburn and say Oklahoma State will generate that much revenue.

Under the format that starts next season, the Rose Bowl could already get a Auburn-Ok St semifinal, once every three years. That's built into the system, along with the money paid out, the sponsorship deals, etc.

Wouldn't be a problem to have the round of 8 games at the home site of the higher seed. Play those games on the third Saturday in December, followed by the semis on Dec 31/Jan 1 and the final a week or two after that.

You are way oversimplifying it. So if the semis are the Bowls, which two bowls? And now you're talking about every year, not just every third year. The payout was determined after the 4 team playoff was created, we don't know what it would be in the context of an 8 team playoff.

It's simple to create an 8 team tournament if you do away with the bowls. It's not simple at all if you try to keep them.

It's not complicated. Rotate the semifinal sites as they will starting next season.

The bowls won't like becoming less relevant as the playoff expands, but the basketball NIT didn't like becoming less relevant over time, either. There are consequences to any kind of change.

If you have a first round of playoffs, then the bowls, the non semifinals will have extremely low attendance and ratings. From what I've read, there was no additional money by doing an expanded playoff in that manner. Supposedly they ran the proposal by the networks and that was what they were told.

It's not impossible that the Big12 collapses and those schools are all absorbed by the other 4 leagues. That might make a playoff that incorporates the bowls possible.

That's a tall tale, I think. That's like saying that March Madness would be worth more if there were 16 teams instead of 64.

(12-17-2013 12:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:38 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 08:11 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 07:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Under the format that starts next season, the Rose Bowl could already get a Auburn-Ok St semifinal, once every three years. That's built into the system, along with the money paid out, the sponsorship deals, etc.

Wouldn't be a problem to have the round of 8 games at the home site of the higher seed. Play those games on the third Saturday in December, followed by the semis on Dec 31/Jan 1 and the final a week or two after that.

You are way oversimplifying it. So if the semis are the Bowls, which two bowls? And now you're talking about every year, not just every third year. The payout was determined after the 4 team playoff was created, we don't know what it would be in the context of an 8 team playoff.

It's simple to create an 8 team tournament if you do away with the bowls. It's not simple at all if you try to keep them.

It's not complicated. Rotate the semifinal sites as they will starting next season.

The bowls won't like becoming less relevant as the playoff expands, but the basketball NIT didn't like becoming less relevant over time, either. There are consequences to any kind of change.

If you have a first round of playoffs, then the bowls, the non semifinals will have extremely low attendance and ratings. From what I've read, there was no additional money by doing an expanded playoff in that manner. Supposedly they ran the proposal by the networks and that was what they were told.

It's not impossible that the Big12 collapses and those schools are all absorbed by the other 4 leagues. That might make a playoff that incorporates the bowls possible.

That's a tall tale, I think. That's like saying that March Madness would be worth more if there were 16 teams instead of 64.

I don't think it's really the same situation, too many differences.

(12-16-2013 05:23 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 05:17 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  I like the 8 team 5+3 format. One thing I would like to see, however, is a cap of 2 teams total per conference.

I realize that some "worthy" teams would probably be excluded under this format (for example, this year Alabama would probably edge out a fine Missouri team for the 2nd SEC slot) but I do think that the interests of individual teams rather than conferences should be taken into account. Specifically, I think that teams that win titles in tough leagues shouldn't have to face multiple "mulligan" games. Sure, this year it could mean, for example, that Auburn would have to possibly face a "lesser" Ohio State rather than Missouri again, but they've already beaten Missouri once and they'd still have the risk of facing Saban for a 2nd time (ask Les Miles how that works out).

It's better to not put restrictions on the number of teams per league. The solution to your problem is to set up the bracket so that any of the top three seeded league champs don't have to face anyone in their league until the final if at all. E.g., if it was in effect this year, any SEC team would not be on Auburn's side of the bracket, and Ohio State would not be on Michigan State's side of the bracket.

I'd be OK with this. If Alabama and Missouri had to fight it out and Auburn only had to face the winner, that would be more fair to them in my eyes than making them repeat several games.

IF you have the 1st round of playoffs the week after conference champ games, than the losers from the 1st round playoff game can still go to a bowl game. The problem with 5 auto bids is why would the big 10, acc and sec want to give leagues with less the 14 members, pac 12 and big 12 an auto bid? Also, the larger the playoffs get the less value to the conference champ games and regular season. YOu can't think fans will travel to the conference champ game, 2 playoff games and than 1 title game. Maybe 4 auto bids to the highest ranked conference champ and 4 at large bids with the 1st round on campus.

I'm still not sure why the bowl games went for the current system. They should have advocated the 1st round of the playoffs be the week after the conference champ game and at one site for 4 teams with 2 games. Than the bowls would bid on the winners and losers from that game. Thus, the you have had the champ game once every 4 years for the rose, sugar, orange and fiesta withe losers game getting rotated among the cotton and peach.


I do think something will happen, either jumping to 6-8 team playoffs or further conference shifts with leagues jumping to 16+ and getting 4 clearer paths to the playoffs. I like the big 12/acc football only merger as a way to get 4 clearer paths to the playoffs. Its complicated but that would just require 1 extra game the week following the conference champ games for the acc/big 12 setup. Who knows what the p5 will do, they could work together or attack each other in conference moves.

The current trend of playoff games replacing bowl games would continue into an 8 team playoff most likely.

(12-17-2013 11:11 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I do think something will happen, either jumping to 6-8 team playoffs or further conference shifts with leagues jumping to 16+ and getting 4 clearer paths to the playoffs. I like the big 12/acc football only merger as a way to get 4 clearer paths to the playoffs. Its complicated but that would just require 1 extra game the week following the conference champ games for the acc/big 12 setup. Who knows what the p5 will do, they could work together or attack each other in conference moves.

I think we need to slow down here. Everything is set for the next 6-12 seasons on the postseason front so there is going to be plenty of time to discuss this.

What is needed is more reflection on the accomplishments of the new system.

1) The issue of a #3 or #4 deserving team to play for a national championship has been solved. There have been years of clear cut #1 and #2 but other years its been more murky as to who belongs.

2) Expansion from 5 major bowl games (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, NC) to 6 major bowl games (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Cotton, Peach, Orange). Access to the system has been an issue for all conferences with deserving teams left out. Its been slightly improved access and inclusion of the Cotton Bowl finally which many said belonged all along.

3) A selection committee to pick the 4 teams for the playoff and participants for the access bowls. Before it was a system of media polls and computers determining teams #1 and #2. This is overlooked advantage of the new system because before teams like #4 K-State were left out, passed over by schools with larger fanbases. The Top 12 in the committee rankings will be participating as long as the P5/G5 autobids are accounted for. In reality the Top 10 will be covered.

Also gone are the days of jank bowl placements like UCF or UConn to the Fiesta Bowl. Those schools will be playing in the more geographically Peach Bowl where more of their fans can make the short drive. At worst they will get stuck in the Cotton Bowl.

4) With a 6 game CFP bowl cycle the non-CFP bowls have now been set to a 6 game rotation. The longer cycle means more stability for the bowl system. This portends that any future expansion of the CFP to an 8-10 bowl system may lengthen the cycle to 8-10 years......or lead to more of a consensus that they have the right length with a 6 year system.

Things the new system does not address:

1) An autobid to the playoff for all P5 conferences. For at least 20 years the suggestion has been out there to take the Top 4 schools into a mini playoff to see who is really deserving. That idea is as old as the mountains.

There have been some suggestions of a 16 team traditional playoff model of and on so every conference would get an automatic bid. Never has a model such as all 6 BCS conferences be invited to an 8 team playoff been discussed. The discussion has been centered around deserving teams, not deserving conferences for a mini-playoff. It just always has been that way.

2) Major bowls placed in incognito. The Holiday, Capital One, Sun, Gator were traditional major bowl games who are watching their importance diminish under the new system. A major bowl going forward is going to be defined as making a CFP bowl. These games are going to be hurting taking in schools narrowly missing the CFP that are disinterested.

At a school like a Nebraska or Auburn, winning 9 games is considered an average season so fans may not be interested in a Gator Bowl.

3) Access is still an issue. While there are 12 slots in the CFP, once you are past the P5/G5 autobids only the Top 9-10 are truly ensured a place at the CFP table. There are going to be 3-4 P5 schools with 2 losses or less locked out of a CFP game.

Going to 8 bowls and adding a couple like the Gator and Holiday would help to solve issue #3 from above and issue #2. With 16 slots, its likely that all P5/G5 autobids would be accounted for so the Top 16 in that case all gets to go instead of the Top 9-10 in the current system.

Let's say the P5 does become the P4 with the PAC/B1G in Rose and SEC/ACC in Orange. An extra game in California (Holiday) and Florida (Gator) make sense because the Rose and Orange are essentially going to be on lock down in a P4 arrangement. That would give a school like Wisconsin a shot at the Gator or Texas Tech a shot at the Holiday. I don't think the Capital One would be allowed to become a CFP bowl because of the cash cow it is for the SEC/B1G and making the Gator a CFP game is one way to revive a game that doesn't work as well without top tier status.

(12-17-2013 08:08 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The current trend of playoff games replacing bowl games would continue into an 8 team playoff most likely.

Yes but the evolution of the P5 to a P4 is the first step in mandating an 8 team playoff....

Why? With the cycles set up for 6 years/6 bowls its going to take another massive realignment before the powers that be are going to want to move to 8 years/8 bowls/8 team playoff. The system has to be broke before its fixed and right now its standing is fixed.

The next big shakeup probably is going to be when the B12 TV rights are up in 10 years. Likely at least 2 cylcles of 6 years/6 bowls and maybe more.

In 12 years you could have 8 conferences with 16-20 teams each....

P4 (PAC, SEC, B1G, ACC)
G4 (B12, MWC, CUSA, MAC)

The AAC and the SBC may not survive. The AAC is positioned for potential raiding by the B12 with the scraps headed to MWC/CUSA. The SBC could be put out of business by CUSA/MAC if those leagues moved to 16-18 teams quickly.

(12-17-2013 11:00 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 08:08 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The current trend of playoff games replacing bowl games would continue into an 8 team playoff most likely.

Yes but the evolution of the P5 to a P4 is the first step in mandating an 8 team playoff....

Why? With the cycles set up for 6 years/6 bowls its going to take another massive realignment before the powers that be are going to want to move to 8 years/8 bowls/8 team playoff. The system has to be broke before its fixed and right now its standing is fixed.

The next big shakeup probably is going to be when the B12 TV rights are up in 10 years. Likely at least 2 cylcles of 6 years/6 bowls and maybe more.

In 12 years you could have 8 conferences with 16-20 teams each....

P4 (PAC, SEC, B1G, ACC)
G4 (B12, MWC, CUSA, MAC)

The AAC and the SBC may not survive. The AAC is positioned for potential raiding by the B12 with the scraps headed to MWC/CUSA. The SBC could be put out of business by CUSA/MAC if those leagues moved to 16-18 teams quickly.

You are preaching to the choir when it comes to talking to me about there being major realignment before we get the 8 team tournament. The Networks will absolutely want the expanded tournament, they probably already do. The Conferences most wanting expansion can easily hold that progress up until the Network open up their wallets for expansion.

I think the AAC survives and becomes the premier mid-major with additions from the MWC. I think the SBC will still survive. It may be in the same division with the Majors, it may end up below. I think the MAC will be in similar position. CUSA may be a step above or it may get raided into similar standing as the rest.

I don't think anyone is waiting 10 years for any of this to happen.

(12-17-2013 08:08 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The current trend of playoff games replacing bowl games would continue into an 8 team playoff most likely.

It'll happen once the powers that be figure out how much more money there is in the playoff. The bowl monies will pale in comparison.

(12-18-2013 12:41 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 11:00 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 08:08 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The current trend of playoff games replacing bowl games would continue into an 8 team playoff most likely.

Yes but the evolution of the P5 to a P4 is the first step in mandating an 8 team playoff....

Why? With the cycles set up for 6 years/6 bowls its going to take another massive realignment before the powers that be are going to want to move to 8 years/8 bowls/8 team playoff. The system has to be broke before its fixed and right now its standing is fixed.

The next big shakeup probably is going to be when the B12 TV rights are up in 10 years. Likely at least 2 cylcles of 6 years/6 bowls and maybe more.

In 12 years you could have 8 conferences with 16-20 teams each....

P4 (PAC, SEC, B1G, ACC)
G4 (B12, MWC, CUSA, MAC)

The AAC and the SBC may not survive. The AAC is positioned for potential raiding by the B12 with the scraps headed to MWC/CUSA. The SBC could be put out of business by CUSA/MAC if those leagues moved to 16-18 teams quickly.

You are preaching to the choir when it comes to talking to me about there being major realignment before we get the 8 team tournament. The Networks will absolutely want the expanded tournament, they probably already do. The Conferences most wanting expansion can easily hold that progress up until the Network open up their wallets for expansion.

I think the AAC survives and becomes the premier mid-major with additions from the MWC. I think the SBC will still survive. It may be in the same division with the Majors, it may end up below. I think the MAC will be in similar position. CUSA may be a step above or it may get raided into similar standing as the rest.

I don't think anyone is waiting 10 years for any of this to happen.

Another perspective to think about; how long did it take the BCS system to officially wear out its welcome?

It was 16 years for a system that was considered flawed from the start but more importantly 4 bowl cycles; 1998-2001, 2002-2005, 2006-2009, 2010-2013 before it was in the grave.

I'm not entirely convinced their are any flaws in the new system. The only one that I could possibly see is 2 loss P5 schools screwed out of CFP bowls. I question the legality of returning to an autobid system within the construct of an 8 team playoff. There is technically no autobids in the new CFP system, just a couple of contracts for the big guys.

Four bowl cycles of the CFP would have the present system operating for 24 years. With the advent of al la carte programing. digital streaming and the fact that P5 TV deal valuations are brushing up against those of professional sports there isn't going to be another x5 multipler in P5 and postseason value like there was this time around.

I do think leagues will be going bigger just to maintain their enormous TV contracts. The G5 will continue to be a willing junior partner in the process. Instead of schools being pushed down I could see movement that leaves ULM and Idaho behind with the SBC/MAC combining. Instead of a slew of new moveups from FCS to FBS it makes sense for the SBC/MAC to combine and cut out the middle man (of course after CUSA takes some of the best programs).

I don't see how the AAC is going to make post another round of realignment. They should be bulking up to 16 just to be safe, IMO.

(12-17-2013 11:11 AM)bluesox Wrote:  IF you have the 1st round of playoffs the week after conference champ games, than the losers from the 1st round playoff game can still go to a bowl game. The problem with 5 auto bids is why would the big 10, acc and sec want to give leagues with less the 14 members, pac 12 and big 12 an auto bid? Also, the larger the playoffs get the less value to the conference champ games and regular season. YOu can't think fans will travel to the conference champ game, 2 playoff games and than 1 title game. Maybe 4 auto bids to the highest ranked conference champ and 4 at large bids with the 1st round on campus.

I'm still not sure why the bowl games went for the current system. They should have advocated the 1st round of the playoffs be the week after the conference champ game and at one site for 4 teams with 2 games. Than the bowls would bid on the winners and losers from that game. Thus, the you have had the champ game once every 4 years for the rose, sugar, orange and fiesta withe losers game getting rotated among the cotton and peach.


I do think something will happen, either jumping to 6-8 team playoffs or further conference shifts with leagues jumping to 16+ and getting 4 clearer paths to the playoffs. I like the big 12/acc football only merger as a way to get 4 clearer paths to the playoffs. Its complicated but that would just require 1 extra game the week following the conference champ games for the acc/big 12 setup. Who knows what the p5 will do, they could work together or attack each other in conference moves.

Bowls didn't really have any clout. The Rose Bowl said at the time they don't have a seat at the table.

(12-17-2013 10:45 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Things the new system does not address:

1) An autobid to the playoff for all P5 conferences. For at least 20 years the suggestion has been out there to take the Top 4 schools into a mini playoff to see who is really deserving. That idea is as old as the mountains.

There have been some suggestions of a 16 team traditional playoff model of and on so every conference would get an automatic bid. Never has a model such as all 6 BCS conferences be invited to an 8 team playoff been discussed. The discussion has been centered around deserving teams, not deserving conferences for a mini-playoff. It just always has been that way.

I highly disagree with that statement. Maybe the 16-team model was discussed more in non-power conference circles because it would benefit them, but an 8-team playoff with the power conferences all receiving auto-bids has been discussed much more in reality. Just look at the OP's original article and even look at this article from last year right after the 4-team playoff was announced:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...ight-teams

The key part of that article:

Quote:"I know we're saying four teams for 12 years," Thompson said. "But I don't see it as a four-team playoff for 12 years. I just don't see it. If there is success with four, I think we will go to what is most ideal, which is eight. That would double the access points."

Thompson sees access in the new system as double-edged. On one hand, four teams instead of two have a chance to compete for the national title. But on the other, there are expected to be no provisions guaranteeing a highly ranked champion from a non-traditional power conference will make a top-tier bowl.

"History has shown that TCU twice and perhaps Utah would have made it into those four," Thompson said. "Those teams just needed the opportunity to show they could compete with anybody."

Thompson envisions a playoff with five guaranteed spots for power conferences and three spots for everyone to compete for.

That's Craig Thompson, the commissioner of the MWC, a non-power conference, stating this. Even he realizes that this is the most realistic path to playoff expansion.

(12-18-2013 12:08 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 12:41 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 11:00 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 08:08 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The current trend of playoff games replacing bowl games would continue into an 8 team playoff most likely.

Yes but the evolution of the P5 to a P4 is the first step in mandating an 8 team playoff....

Why? With the cycles set up for 6 years/6 bowls its going to take another massive realignment before the powers that be are going to want to move to 8 years/8 bowls/8 team playoff. The system has to be broke before its fixed and right now its standing is fixed.

The next big shakeup probably is going to be when the B12 TV rights are up in 10 years. Likely at least 2 cylcles of 6 years/6 bowls and maybe more.

In 12 years you could have 8 conferences with 16-20 teams each....

P4 (PAC, SEC, B1G, ACC)
G4 (B12, MWC, CUSA, MAC)

The AAC and the SBC may not survive. The AAC is positioned for potential raiding by the B12 with the scraps headed to MWC/CUSA. The SBC could be put out of business by CUSA/MAC if those leagues moved to 16-18 teams quickly.

You are preaching to the choir when it comes to talking to me about there being major realignment before we get the 8 team tournament. The Networks will absolutely want the expanded tournament, they probably already do. The Conferences most wanting expansion can easily hold that progress up until the Network open up their wallets for expansion.

I think the AAC survives and becomes the premier mid-major with additions from the MWC. I think the SBC will still survive. It may be in the same division with the Majors, it may end up below. I think the MAC will be in similar position. CUSA may be a step above or it may get raided into similar standing as the rest.

I don't think anyone is waiting 10 years for any of this to happen.

Another perspective to think about; how long did it take the BCS system to officially wear out its welcome?

It was 16 years for a system that was considered flawed from the start but more importantly 4 bowl cycles; 1998-2001, 2002-2005, 2006-2009, 2010-2013 before it was in the grave.

I'm not entirely convinced their are any flaws in the new system. The only one that I could possibly see is 2 loss P5 schools screwed out of CFP bowls. I question the legality of returning to an autobid system within the construct of an 8 team playoff. There is technically no autobids in the new CFP system, just a couple of contracts for the big guys.

Four bowl cycles of the CFP would have the present system operating for 24 years. With the advent of al la carte programing. digital streaming and the fact that P5 TV deal valuations are brushing up against those of professional sports there isn't going to be another x5 multipler in P5 and postseason value like there was this time around.

I do think leagues will be going bigger just to maintain their enormous TV contracts. The G5 will continue to be a willing junior partner in the process. Instead of schools being pushed down I could see movement that leaves ULM and Idaho behind with the SBC/MAC combining. Instead of a slew of new moveups from FCS to FBS it makes sense for the SBC/MAC to combine and cut out the middle man (of course after CUSA takes some of the best programs).

I don't see how the AAC is going to make post another round of realignment. They should be bulking up to 16 just to be safe, IMO.

I agree with you on much of this. In terms of the BCS taking awhile to be changed, I do agree but at the same time that is not proof positive that it would take the same amount of time to move from a 4 team playoff to an 8 team playoff. It is two entirely different movements. It is much more complicated and difficult to eradicate one system and move on to another. You have entrenched power bases that were heavily involved in the BCS system. Basically we had to have a public landslide of opinions pushing for the tournament which then pushed the Networks into it because it was obvious money.

The money has reached that tipping point where change is suddenly happening.

In regards to autobids, you are probably right but in order for an autobid to happen, it doesn't have to be specifically laid out that conference champions are autobids. If it is the opinion of the committee members that such a championship should be weighed heavily then that is the same thing as having a statute stating that conference champions get an autobid but instead there is no method of litigating against that opinion because that is what the Committee is there to do.

It will likely happen one way or another, conference champions will get preference because of the risk involved in having them. Only the Big 12 doesn't have one, which is why they are so loud and boisterous in their public ranting about how conference championships should not be looked upon so heavily. They have even moved to talking points about how they should be allowed to have a conference championship with just 10 teams. They showed us all their hand and also what they know is inevitable. They know they will need a conference championship game soon.