It has become clear the CFP is not a playoff. It has devolved into the "Big Brand Name College Football Invitational". While I have zero interest in a G5 playoff---I am intrigiued by another option.

What if the G5 approached the NCAA about sponsoring the NCAA FBS National Football Championship. The post season event would be run and sponsored by the NCAA and would be open to ALL FBS Conferences. All conference champions are automatic qualifiers. A 10 man selection committee comprised of one representative from each FBS conference would fill in the rest of the 12 team field. Participating schools would earn "credits" for each round of participation (including the finals). The CFP would still exist---this tournament would simply represent an NCAA sanctioned alternative post season option to any team invited.

Years ago, the privately owned NIT tournament got the best college basketball teams and crowned the defacto national champion. In those days, the NCAA tournament was an afterthought (basically looked at the way we view the NIT today). The problem with the NIT is its field was very small and limited. The NCAA tournament offered a larger field and that wider participation eventually allowed the NCAA Tournament to become more and more popular--attracting better and better teams. Eventually, the NCAA Tournament surpassed the NIT in popularity and became the determiner of the "real" college basketball champion in most peoples mind.

This year, the potential top seeds of such a NCAA FBS Football National Championship tourney could be Ohio State, USC, and an undefeated UCF (along with 4 other conference champions). If properly packaged and capitalized, such a tournament might just be worth a heck of a lot of TV money. I could easily see such a more open and inclusive tournament becoming the preferred college football post season model of the American public VERY quickly. Now lets be honest---at first, the tournament would probably only attract G5 champs and P5/G5 schools not slated to appear in major CFP bowls. It would be dumb to violate the existing and lucrative CFP deals. Still--for those teams with no place in a CFP sponsored bowl----an NCAA Tournamant would provide an excellent alternative option to a one and done bottom tier bowl. The credit system would even provide the possibility to extra post season income. For the networks, such a tournament would provide an interesting drama played out over a month. That's a much more compelling slowly unfolding story line than a slate of random unrelated G5 vs G5 bowls. The more P5 participation--the better.

The most important differences between this idea and a G5 playoff?

One--it represents a shared G5/P5 postseason--no separation. Two---Because it is sponsored by the NCAA and open to ALL of FBS, the winner can legitmately call themselves the NCAA FBS National Football Champion. The larger field and more transparent (and equitable) qualification methodology would make the tournament very popular with college football fans. My belief is--even if the tournament never unseats the CFP, it will publicize and popularize the more open, transparent, and inclusive concepts to the point that the CFP would feel compelled by public opinion to adopt a very similar structure.

(12-03-2017 10:02 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  The G5 needs to establish their own 4 team tourney, they will NEVER get a team in the playoff.

None of the G5 jobs rank within the Top 40 of football jobs.

SMU leads the G5 as the #49 highest paid coach at 3 million a year. It doesn't mean anything when he'd be gone if a P5 would match his salary.

But there a lot of G5 programs that are competitive enough to not just compete for a G5 conference title but for a major bowl. UCF, Memphis, USF, Toledo, Boise all seriously competed for a NY6 bowl this year.

(12-03-2017 11:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It has become clear the CFP is not a playoff. It has devolved into the "Big Brand Name College Football Invitational". While I have zero interest in a G5 playoff---I am intrigiued by another option.

What if the G5 approached the NCAA about doing sponsoring the NCAA FBS National Football Championship. The post season event would be run and sponsored by the NCAA and would be open to ALL FBS Conferences. All conference champions are automatic qualifiers. A 10 man selection committee comprised of one representative from each FBS conference would fill in the rest of the 12 team field. Participating schools would earn "credits" for each round of participation (including the finals).

Years ago, the privately owned NIT tournament got the best college basketball teams and crowned the defacto national champion. In those days, the NCAA tournament was an afterthought (basically looked at the way we view the NIT today). The fairness and wider participation of the NCAA tournament eventually allowed the NCAA Tournament to become more and more popular--attracting better and better teams. Eventually, the NCAA Tournament became the determiner of the "real" college basketball champion.

This year, the top seeds of such a tourney could be Ohio State, USC, and the an undefeated UCF. If properly packaged and capitalized, such a tournament might just be worth a heck of a lot of TV money. I could easily see such a more open and inclusive tournament becoming the preferred college football post season model of the American public VERY quickly.

What you are saying instead of taking a NY6 consolation prize the G5 lead the charge on a legitimate NCAA playoff.

Could a TV partner get behind this to the point where the money could attract P5 teams? At first maybe it would have to settle for non-CFP P5 teams wanting this instead of the Foster Farms Bowl.

(12-03-2017 11:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It has become clear the CFP is not a playoff. It has devolved into the "Big Brand Name College Football Invitational". While I have zero interest in a G5 playoff---I am intrigiued by another option.

What if the G5 approached the NCAA about doing sponsoring the NCAA FBS National Football Championship. The post season event would be run and sponsored by the NCAA and would be open to ALL FBS Conferences. All conference champions are automatic qualifiers. A 10 man selection committee comprised of one representative from each FBS conference would fill in the rest of the 12 team field. Participating schools would earn "credits" for each round of participation (including the finals).

Years ago, the privately owned NIT tournament got the best college basketball teams and crowned the defacto national champion. In those days, the NCAA tournament was an afterthought (basically looked at the way we view the NIT today). The NCAA tournament offered a larger field and the wider participation of the NCAA tournament eventually allowed the NCAA Tournament to become more and more popular--attracting better and better teams. Eventually, the NCAA Tournament surpassed the NIT in popularity and became the determiner of the "real" college basketball champion in most peoples mind.

This year, the potential top seeds of such a NCAA FBS Football National Championship tourney could be Ohio State, USC, and the an undefeated UCF (along with 4 other conference champions). If properly packaged and capitalized, such a tournament might just be worth a heck of a lot of TV money. I could easily see such a more open and inclusive tournament becoming the preferred college football post season model of the American public VERY quickly. At first, the tournment would probably only attract G5 champs and P5 schools not slated to appear in major CFP bowls. Still--it would provide an excellent entertainment dollar and would provide a better post season for many G5 and P5 schools.

The most important difference between this idea and a G5 playoff? Because it is sponsored by the NCAA and open to ALL of FBS, the winner can legitmately call themselves the NCAA FBS National Football Champion.

AC,
Not sure your age but the NCAA made a rule you could not go to another tournament if offered a NCAA bid. Thus destroying the NIT as competition in the early 70's. NCAA should have been nailed for anti-trust but that would be done by football for TV in the 80's. Thus why the NCAA has never been able to control football like it did basketball. When the NIT finally did sue the NCAA, the NCAA bought it because it was likely to lose. To tired to look it up, but as you can guess, I will just be happy to be around in 2024 to see what happens.

Thought it was Al McQuire and Marquette that turned down NCAA for NIT which I believed created the NCAA rule about not being able to turn down the NCAA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Natio...Tournament

(12-03-2017 11:50 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 11:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It has become clear the CFP is not a playoff. It has devolved into the "Big Brand Name College Football Invitational". While I have zero interest in a G5 playoff---I am intrigiued by another option.

What if the G5 approached the NCAA about doing sponsoring the NCAA FBS National Football Championship. The post season event would be run and sponsored by the NCAA and would be open to ALL FBS Conferences. All conference champions are automatic qualifiers. A 10 man selection committee comprised of one representative from each FBS conference would fill in the rest of the 12 team field. Participating schools would earn "credits" for each round of participation (including the finals).

Years ago, the privately owned NIT tournament got the best college basketball teams and crowned the defacto national champion. In those days, the NCAA tournament was an afterthought (basically looked at the way we view the NIT today). The NCAA tournament offered a larger field and the wider participation of the NCAA tournament eventually allowed the NCAA Tournament to become more and more popular--attracting better and better teams. Eventually, the NCAA Tournament surpassed the NIT in popularity and became the determiner of the "real" college basketball champion in most peoples mind.

This year, the potential top seeds of such a NCAA FBS Football National Championship tourney could be Ohio State, USC, and the an undefeated UCF (along with 4 other conference champions). If properly packaged and capitalized, such a tournament might just be worth a heck of a lot of TV money. I could easily see such a more open and inclusive tournament becoming the preferred college football post season model of the American public VERY quickly. At first, the tournment would probably only attract G5 champs and P5 schools not slated to appear in major CFP bowls. Still--it would provide an excellent entertainment dollar and would provide a better post season for many G5 and P5 schools.

The most important difference between this idea and a G5 playoff? Because it is sponsored by the NCAA and open to ALL of FBS, the winner can legitmately call themselves the NCAA FBS National Football Champion.

AC,
Not sure your age but the NCAA made a rule you could not go to another tournament if offered a NCAA bid. Thus destroying the NIT as competition in the early 70's. NCAA should have been nailed for anti-trust but that would be done by football for TV in the 80's. Thus why the NCAA has never been able to control football like it did basketball. When the NIT finally did sue the NCAA, the NCAA bought it because it was likely to lose. To tired to look it up, but as you can guess, I will just be happy to be around in 2024 to see what happens.

Thought it was Al McQuire and Marquette that turned down NCAA for NIT which I believed created the NCAA rule about not being able to turn down the NCAA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Natio...Tournament

That was definitely a BIG factor. That said, the NCAA always had a larger more inclusive field. The NIT expanded for a while to match it--but the NCAA just kept getting bigger. I think NIT started at 6 teams and refused to go larger than 16 until it was too late. (Going off memory so I could be wrong on the exact numbers). Like I said, the NIT concept doesnt even really have to unseat the CFP to be successfull. The concept itself offers a better post season for the G5. Additionally, its larger field and its more equitable (more transparent) structure would probably prompt similar changes in CFP (making the post season for everyone better).

(12-03-2017 11:46 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 11:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It has become clear the CFP is not a playoff. It has devolved into the "Big Brand Name College Football Invitational". While I have zero interest in a G5 playoff---I am intrigiued by another option.

What if the G5 approached the NCAA about doing sponsoring the NCAA FBS National Football Championship. The post season event would be run and sponsored by the NCAA and would be open to ALL FBS Conferences. All conference champions are automatic qualifiers. A 10 man selection committee comprised of one representative from each FBS conference would fill in the rest of the 12 team field. Participating schools would earn "credits" for each round of participation (including the finals).

Years ago, the privately owned NIT tournament got the best college basketball teams and crowned the defacto national champion. In those days, the NCAA tournament was an afterthought (basically looked at the way we view the NIT today). The fairness and wider participation of the NCAA tournament eventually allowed the NCAA Tournament to become more and more popular--attracting better and better teams. Eventually, the NCAA Tournament became the determiner of the "real" college basketball champion.

This year, the top seeds of such a tourney could be Ohio State, USC, and the an undefeated UCF. If properly packaged and capitalized, such a tournament might just be worth a heck of a lot of TV money. I could easily see such a more open and inclusive tournament becoming the preferred college football post season model of the American public VERY quickly.

What you are saying instead of taking a NY6 consolation prize the G5 lead the charge on a legitimate NCAA playoff.

Could a TV partner get behind this to the point where the money could attract P5 teams? At first maybe it would have to settle for non-CFP P5 teams wanting this instead of the Foster Farms Bowl.

Not really. Im saying do an NIT---but let it be officially owned and run by the NCAA so it's essentially in the position of being the official FBS National Football Playoff. For now, every conference would contractually continue to fulfill any and all contractual agreement with the CFP. You could not do this until the next bowl cycle (because the conferences have contractual obligation to bowls as well).

What would happen is a lot of junk bowls would die as most of these "Football NIT" games would take place on home team stadiums rather than bowls. Perhaps a few minor bowls could be integrated into the tournament to serve as the sites for the semi-finals and finals (or maybe just the finals). In order to save a few more bowls---you might create an exemption that allows the first round losers to play in a minor bowl (that would save a few bowls from extinction and serve as a fantastic motivator to participate in the new tournament (basically, such a rule would effectively guarantee every team a second game).

This year is the perfect case for a 8 team playoff. UCF basically can win the NY6 bowl and claim that they should have a share of the championship since they finished as the only undefeated team in FBS this season, and the B1G has a legit beef for being left out for a team that didn't even win their own division, nevermind conference.

5 P5 champions
1 top G5 champ
2 at-large bids
Seeding order is based on their ranking

1 Clemson (ACC champ)
8 UCF (G5 champ)

4 Alabama (At-large)
5 Ohio State (B1G champ)

3 Georgia (SEC champ)
6 Wisconsin (At-large)

2 Oklahoma (B12 champ)
7 USC (P12 champ)

You basically eliminate the legit controversies with this setup since all 5 power conference champs + top G5 champ gets in. If in the future an indy like ND or Army; or any other G5 champ want in, run the table and get ranked.

I don't see anything wrong with the four that they picked. Sure, there's room for improvement....but it's really not that unfair of a shake.

(12-04-2017 12:19 AM)AntiG Wrote:  This year is the perfect case for a 8 team playoff. UCF basically can win the NY6 bowl and claim that they should have a share of the championship since they finished as the only undefeated team in FBS this season, and the B1G has a legit beef for being left out for a team that didn't even win their own division, nevermind conference.

5 P5 champions
1 top G5 champ
2 at-large bids
Seeding order is based on their ranking

1 Clemson (ACC champ)
8 UCF (G5 champ)

4 Alabama (At-large)
5 Ohio State (B1G champ)

3 Georgia (SEC champ)
6 Wisconsin (At-large)

2 Oklahoma (B12 champ)
7 USC (P12 champ)

You basically eliminate the legit controversies with this setup since all 5 power conference champs + top G5 champ gets in. If in the future an indy like ND or Army; or any other G5 champ want in, run the table and get ranked.

How about an 8 team playoff with G5 autobids?

#1 Clemson
#2 Oklahoma
#3 Georgia
AAC Champ UCF
MAC Champ Toledo
MWC Champ Boise
SBC Champ Troy
CUSA Champ FAU

Bring some affirmative action to the sport....

(12-04-2017 01:22 AM)ncbeta Wrote:  I don't see anything wrong with the four that they picked. Sure, there's room for improvement....but it's really not that unfair of a shake.

With the exception of an undefeated UCF from a pretty competitive AAC getting snubbed to no undefeated teams in the cfp, I don't disagree. For what it is, at least.

I'm glad we're over the hypothetical hump of multi-bids to a single conference. We know these guys will do that now.

I'm also glad, in a symbolic way, that the two biggest nags when it came to putting the playoff together and keeping it as small as it is, the Big Ten and PAC-12, are sitting out of it. And their precious Rose Bowl gets no traditional representation. I'm totally fine with that.

Interestingly enough, you get a curious matchup in the Cotton with OSU and USC...what better place for the B1G and PAC's historic top dogs to showcase as we wonder what is to become of the Big XII? Like, how well do fans show up for the game in Texas to demonstrate to certain schools life after the SWC+Big 8 experiment ain't so bad?

Seeing the Big Ten and PAC both snubbed makes me much happier than seeing the Big XII snubbed again and melting down a little more, too. Then again, we know the Big XII isn't going to expand. Still, if the ccg is successful in helping to install a team into the cfb, does it potentially fix that conference?

Overall, this is okay. We're here because of greed, stupid traditions, academic snobbery, and anti-competitive behavior. I don't care what happens in any of these games...it could have been worse.

(12-04-2017 01:46 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:19 AM)AntiG Wrote:  This year is the perfect case for a 8 team playoff. UCF basically can win the NY6 bowl and claim that they should have a share of the championship since they finished as the only undefeated team in FBS this season, and the B1G has a legit beef for being left out for a team that didn't even win their own division, nevermind conference.

5 P5 champions
1 top G5 champ
2 at-large bids
Seeding order is based on their ranking

1 Clemson (ACC champ)
8 UCF (G5 champ)

4 Alabama (At-large)
5 Ohio State (B1G champ)

3 Georgia (SEC champ)
6 Wisconsin (At-large)

2 Oklahoma (B12 champ)
7 USC (P12 champ)

You basically eliminate the legit controversies with this setup since all 5 power conference champs + top G5 champ gets in. If in the future an indy like ND or Army; or any other G5 champ want in, run the table and get ranked.

How about an 8 team playoff with G5 autobids?

#1 Clemson
#2 Oklahoma
#3 Georgia
AAC Champ UCF
MAC Champ Toledo
MWC Champ Boise
SBC Champ Troy
CUSA Champ FAU

Bring some affirmative action to the sport....

1 Clemson (AQ) vs 16 Troy (AQ)
8 USC (AQ) vs 9 Penn State
4 Alabama vs 13 Boise State (AQ)
5 Ohio State (AQ) vs 12 UCF (AQ)
2 Oklahoma (AQ) vs 15 Toledo (AQ)
7 Auburn vs 10 Miami
3 Georgia (AQ) vs 14 FAU (AQ)
6 Wisconsin vs 11 Washington

Eventually everyone will circle back to 5+1+2

To much money coming in from Conference Championship Games.

Best layout would to keep the CCGs.

All P5 Champs get autobids. The highest rated G5 Champ makes it in and then the two highest ranked remaining teams are added. 8 team playoffs with all conferences represented. sort of

No and it shouldn't. All conference knew they would be left out at some point. It sucks, but it's the nature of things and it did exactly what they wanted. It created huge games all season and national attention on a major game or two (or more) most weeks. In short, they kept what they wanted in the regular season.

(12-04-2017 08:45 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  No and it shouldn't. All conference knew they would be left out at some point. It sucks, but it's the nature of things and it did exactly what they wanted. It created huge games all season and national attention on a major game or two (or more) most weeks. In short, they kept what they wanted in the regular season.

Yes, but knowing it conceptually and then actually feeling it can be two different things.

I have to admit, though, that if Ohio State and Jim Delany are fuming right now, as I know I would be, they have done a remarkable job of keeping a proper poker face about it. Both issued bland statements expressing mild disappointment but also respect for the system, very classy.

(12-04-2017 08:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 08:45 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  No and it shouldn't. All conference knew they would be left out at some point. It sucks, but it's the nature of things and it did exactly what they wanted. It created huge games all season and national attention on a major game or two (or more) most weeks. In short, they kept what they wanted in the regular season.

Yes, but knowing it conceptually and then actually feeling it can be two different things.

I have to admit, though, that if Ohio State and Jim Delany are fuming right now, as I know I would be, they have done a remarkable job of keeping a proper poker face about it. Both issued bland statements expressing mild disappointment but also respect for the system, very classy.

Jim Delaney talking to Urban Meyer.

"When I heard it, And I said to myself, this is the business we've chosen; I didn't ask who gave the order, because it had nothing to do with business!"

It’s been more or less quiet on the Ohio State front because the Buckeyes got in at Penn State’s expense last year, and actually lost to them, unlike Alabama (who did not play OSU, of course).

To maximize the CCGs and Cinderella stories, auto-bids should be implemented in the future. The rest of an eight team playoff should be made-up of three wildcards to reward a commendable regular season, I’m not sure a G5 “champ” rule would go over. No changes to the six major bowl games need to be made.

I was the original advocate of a twelve team playoff, but I think that would be years and years away.

(12-04-2017 09:08 AM)esayem Wrote:  It’s been more or less quiet on the Ohio State front because the Buckeyes got in at Penn State’s expense last year, and actually lost to them, unlike Alabama (who did not play OSU, of course).

To maximize the CCGs and Cinderella stories, auto-bids should be implemented in the future. The rest of an eight team playoff should be made-up of three wildcards to reward a commendable regular season, I’m not sure a G5 “champ” rule would go over. No changes to the six major bowl games need to be made.

I was the original advocate of a twelve team playoff, but I think that would be years and years away.

To me, it doesn't make conceptual sense to have an automatic G5 entry unless we have 16 teams in the playoffs. With 8 teams, chances are, the 8th best P5 team is better than the best G5 team, and since #8 is also probably a legit title contender, that's too high a price to pay for auto-inclusion. The G5 champ could be eligible for one of the three wild-cards like everyone else.

(12-04-2017 08:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I have to admit, though, that if Ohio State and Jim Delany are fuming right now, as I know I would be, they have done a remarkable job of keeping a proper poker face about it. Both issued bland statements expressing mild disappointment but also respect for the system, very classy.

Most conferences wanted a bigger playoff. B1G and PAC wanted the +1 with the bowls still heavily in play. What we have is the compromise between the two sides. They have no reason to *****.

It's not like the B1G is really missing out, though. Three teams in the access bowls, and two of them are B1G-PAC matches.

(12-04-2017 09:36 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 08:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I have to admit, though, that if Ohio State and Jim Delany are fuming right now, as I know I would be, they have done a remarkable job of keeping a proper poker face about it. Both issued bland statements expressing mild disappointment but also respect for the system, very classy.

Most conferences wanted a bigger playoff. B1G and PAC wanted the +1 with the bowls still heavily in play. What we have is the compromise between the two sides. They have no reason to *****.

It's not like the B1G is really missing out, though. Three teams in the access bowls, and two of them are B1G-PAC matches.

The Bowls don't mean anything.