Six is a waste, a half-measure. Why have an extra round if not to max it out to 8? Either keep it at 4 (the likeliest result IMO) or go to 8.

(04-17-2019 04:23 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 04:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The solution is an 8 team playoff---the 5-1-2 model. The 5 P5 champs, a conditional slot for the highest ranked G5 winner, and 2 at large berths.

The NY6 bowls can serve as the quarter and semi-final sites. Quarter finals are played on or around New Years Day. Semis are played mid-January. National title the Saturday night before the Super Bowl. The Semi-final sites will still hold a bowl on/near NYD pitting 4 of the best non-playoff teams, with geography/traditional tie ins. (i.e. If the Rose Bowl is a quarterfinal host site on New Years Day they'd host the top Big Ten and Pac 12 team not in the playoff)

Notre Dame would not like this change.

Ha, tough sh!t.

(04-17-2019 04:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 06:44 AM)FloridaJag Wrote:  Barry Alvarez ‘not happy’ about CFP ‘not following criteria,’ says Jim Delaney wants expansion.

Get em Barry, get em!

https://www.al.com/alabamafootball/2019/...nsion.html

So. What is your point? Barry doesn't control the CFP. Sponsors do. We aren't expanding. There is very little evidence to say that gong to 4 has reasonably changed the outcome of what the old BCS would have provided.

The time slots aren't there for 6 or 8 and the viewership may indicate that most years it wasn't really there for 4, although that does seem to be a matter of what day the semis are played.

Among administrators there is zero impetus for expansion. The network that sponsors it isn't clamoring for it either.

Expand the playoffs is the new dead time talk to drive paper sales and blog hits replacing the old realignment is imminent talk we used to get after March Madness. It's nothing but dead time click bait.

I recall a 4 seed winning the CFP.


All my proposed 8 team playoff would add is 2 additional games. Utilizing the NY6 for quarterfinal sites maintains a status quo and drives the value of those games as 2/3rds of them now have national title implications.

The existing title game stands in the time slot of one of the two new semifinals so you are just adding one more (although I'd propose sliding the semis back to the weekend of the NFL Conference Championships in order to move to some weekend timeslots.

The Saturday before the Super Bowl is a blank slate--literally nothing going on in football.

(04-17-2019 01:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 11:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 10:46 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 08:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  But its not as easy as he says. You have to either put the bowls at risk by having quarterfinals in December or put attendance in the semi-finals at risk as you try to do 3 games in a row and manouver around the NFL playoffs.

The biggest issue is TV. If ESPN or Fox or anyone else was offering to double the CFP TV money to get an 8-team playoff, it would have happened already. Money makes it easy to deal with every other issue. The schedule will work itself out, they'll play the first round at the higher seeds' home stadiums so that the TV cameras don't have to hide tens of thousands of empty seats at neutral sites, etc.

And if the TV money on offer isn't much more than the current money, there won't be an expanded playoff, just as March Madness didn't expand to 96 teams, even though the coaches wanted it, because CBS and Turner were not interested enough to significantly increase the huge amount they already pay to the NCAA.

I'm fine with the bowls taking the hit by having the quarterfinals at home sites in December. But a lot of people aren't. The losers aren't going to be enthused about going to a bowl game. You would almost have to have the losers play each other.

Can't see the loser of a playoff game going to a bowl game after that loss. NCAA basketball tournament losers don't jump into the NIT after being eliminated from the NCAA tournament. The bowls will have to make do with the 60 or 70 bowl-eligible teams that are not in the playoff. It's just another thing that boils down to money. If there's enough TV money involved, no one will be too bothered that the bowl guys get a team farther down the totem pole than the team they used to get.

Conference championship losers play in a bowl game in the current system. The conference championship games are similar to a pre-Final Four NCAA round.

TCU coach Gary Patterson proposed a CFP expansion that supplants the conference championship games. The money for a CFP quarterfinal round would likely be better than the money from the various CCGs.

https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/col...28585.html


I believe it would depend on when the CFP early round games were played as to whether CFP losers would still play in a bowl game.

FWIW, I love the idea to use Atlanta, DFW, Las Vegas, and Indianapolis as the CFP quarterfinal venues, with regional hosts, in lieu of CCGs. Based on 2018 pre-CCG rankings, this is what the CFP quarterfinals could have looked like:

PARTICIPANTS
(1)Alabama(12-0, SEC champ)
(2)Clemson(12-0, ACC champ)
(3)Notre Dame(12-0, at large)
(4)Georgia(11-1, at large)
(5)Oklahoma(11-1, B12 champ)
(6)Ohio State(11-1, B1G champ)
(8)UCF(11-0, G5 rep)
(11)Washington(9-3, PAC champ)

LEFT OUT: #7 Michigan (10-2)

QUARTERFINALS
December 1, 2018
Arlington:(1)Alabama v. (8)Washington
Atlanta: (2)Clemson v. (7)UCF
Indianapolis: (3)Notre Dame v. (6)Ohio St.
Las Vegas: (4)Georgia v. (5)Oklahoma

SEMIFINALS
December 29, 2018
COTTON BOWL:(2)Clemson v. (3)Notre Dame
ORANGE BOWL: (1)Alabama v. (4)Georgia

OTHER NY6 BOWL GAMES
December 29, 2018
(Based on pre-CCG rankings)
PEACH BOWL: #7 Michigan v. #10 LSU
January 1, 2019
ROSE BOWL: #11 Washington v. #6 Ohio St.
SUGAR BOWL: #5 Oklahoma v. #9 Florida
FIESTA BOWL: #8 UCF v. #12 Penn St.

(04-17-2019 04:23 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 04:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The solution is an 8 team playoff---the 5-1-2 model. The 5 P5 champs, a conditional slot for the highest ranked G5 winner, and 2 at large berths.

The NY6 bowls can serve as the quarter and semi-final sites. Quarter finals are played on or around New Years Day. Semis are played mid-January. National title the Saturday night before the Super Bowl. The Semi-final sites will still hold a bowl on/near NYD pitting 4 of the best non-playoff teams, with geography/traditional tie ins. (i.e. If the Rose Bowl is a quarterfinal host site on New Years Day they'd host the top Big Ten and Pac 12 team not in the playoff)

Notre Dame would not like this change.

Why not? I think that they would be happy with the two at large berths.

(04-17-2019 05:30 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 01:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 11:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 10:46 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 08:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  But its not as easy as he says. You have to either put the bowls at risk by having quarterfinals in December or put attendance in the semi-finals at risk as you try to do 3 games in a row and manouver around the NFL playoffs.

The biggest issue is TV. If ESPN or Fox or anyone else was offering to double the CFP TV money to get an 8-team playoff, it would have happened already. Money makes it easy to deal with every other issue. The schedule will work itself out, they'll play the first round at the higher seeds' home stadiums so that the TV cameras don't have to hide tens of thousands of empty seats at neutral sites, etc.

And if the TV money on offer isn't much more than the current money, there won't be an expanded playoff, just as March Madness didn't expand to 96 teams, even though the coaches wanted it, because CBS and Turner were not interested enough to significantly increase the huge amount they already pay to the NCAA.

I'm fine with the bowls taking the hit by having the quarterfinals at home sites in December. But a lot of people aren't. The losers aren't going to be enthused about going to a bowl game. You would almost have to have the losers play each other.

Can't see the loser of a playoff game going to a bowl game after that loss. NCAA basketball tournament losers don't jump into the NIT after being eliminated from the NCAA tournament. The bowls will have to make do with the 60 or 70 bowl-eligible teams that are not in the playoff. It's just another thing that boils down to money. If there's enough TV money involved, no one will be too bothered that the bowl guys get a team farther down the totem pole than the team they used to get.

Conference championship losers play in a bowl game in the current system. The conference championship games are similar to a pre-Final Four NCAA round.

TCU coach Gary Patterson proposed a CFP expansion that supplants the conference championship games. The money for a CFP quarterfinal round would likely be better than the money from the various CCGs.

https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/col...28585.html


I believe it would depend on when the CFP early round games were played as to whether CFP losers would still play in a bowl game.

FWIW, I love the idea to use Atlanta, DFW, Las Vegas, and Indianapolis as the CFP quarterfinal venues, with regional hosts, in lieu of CCGs. Based on 2018 pre-CCG rankings, this is what the CFP quarterfinals could have looked like:

PARTICIPANTS
(1)Alabama(12-0, SEC champ)
(2)Clemson(12-0, ACC champ)
(3)Notre Dame(12-0, at large)
(4)Georgia(11-1, at large)
(5)Oklahoma(11-1, B12 champ)
(6)Ohio State(11-1, B1G champ)
(8)UCF(11-0, G5 rep)
(11)Washington(9-3, PAC champ)

LEFT OUT: #7 Michigan (10-2)

QUARTERFINALS
December 1, 2018
Arlington:(1)Alabama v. (8)Washington
Atlanta: (2)Clemson v. (7)UCF
Indianapolis: (3)Notre Dame v. (6)Ohio St.
Las Vegas: (4)Georgia v. (5)Oklahoma

SEMIFINALS
December 29, 2018
COTTON BOWL:(2)Clemson v. (3)Notre Dame
ORANGE BOWL: (1)Alabama v. (4)Georgia

OTHER NY6 BOWL GAMES
December 29, 2018
(Based on pre-CCG rankings)
PEACH BOWL: #7 Michigan v. #10 LSU
January 1, 2019
ROSE BOWL: #11 Washington v. #6 Ohio St.
SUGAR BOWL: #5 Oklahoma v. #9 Florida
FIESTA BOWL: #8 UCF v. #12 Penn St.

That isn't a bad setup but I kinda hope they keep it at 4 and let the 4 highest P5 champs in.

(04-17-2019 05:37 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 04:23 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 04:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The solution is an 8 team playoff---the 5-1-2 model. The 5 P5 champs, a conditional slot for the highest ranked G5 winner, and 2 at large berths.

The NY6 bowls can serve as the quarter and semi-final sites. Quarter finals are played on or around New Years Day. Semis are played mid-January. National title the Saturday night before the Super Bowl. The Semi-final sites will still hold a bowl on/near NYD pitting 4 of the best non-playoff teams, with geography/traditional tie ins. (i.e. If the Rose Bowl is a quarterfinal host site on New Years Day they'd host the top Big Ten and Pac 12 team not in the playoff)

Notre Dame would not like this change.

Why not? I think that they would be happy with the two at large berths.

Because it would reduce the number of playoff spots Notre Dame is eligible for from 4 to 2?

(04-17-2019 06:08 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 05:30 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 01:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 11:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 10:46 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The biggest issue is TV. If ESPN or Fox or anyone else was offering to double the CFP TV money to get an 8-team playoff, it would have happened already. Money makes it easy to deal with every other issue. The schedule will work itself out, they'll play the first round at the higher seeds' home stadiums so that the TV cameras don't have to hide tens of thousands of empty seats at neutral sites, etc.

And if the TV money on offer isn't much more than the current money, there won't be an expanded playoff, just as March Madness didn't expand to 96 teams, even though the coaches wanted it, because CBS and Turner were not interested enough to significantly increase the huge amount they already pay to the NCAA.

I'm fine with the bowls taking the hit by having the quarterfinals at home sites in December. But a lot of people aren't. The losers aren't going to be enthused about going to a bowl game. You would almost have to have the losers play each other.

Can't see the loser of a playoff game going to a bowl game after that loss. NCAA basketball tournament losers don't jump into the NIT after being eliminated from the NCAA tournament. The bowls will have to make do with the 60 or 70 bowl-eligible teams that are not in the playoff. It's just another thing that boils down to money. If there's enough TV money involved, no one will be too bothered that the bowl guys get a team farther down the totem pole than the team they used to get.

Conference championship losers play in a bowl game in the current system. The conference championship games are similar to a pre-Final Four NCAA round.

TCU coach Gary Patterson proposed a CFP expansion that supplants the conference championship games. The money for a CFP quarterfinal round would likely be better than the money from the various CCGs.

https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/col...28585.html


I believe it would depend on when the CFP early round games were played as to whether CFP losers would still play in a bowl game.

FWIW, I love the idea to use Atlanta, DFW, Las Vegas, and Indianapolis as the CFP quarterfinal venues, with regional hosts, in lieu of CCGs. Based on 2018 pre-CCG rankings, this is what the CFP quarterfinals could have looked like:

PARTICIPANTS
(1)Alabama(12-0, SEC champ)
(2)Clemson(12-0, ACC champ)
(3)Notre Dame(12-0, at large)
(4)Georgia(11-1, at large)
(5)Oklahoma(11-1, B12 champ)
(6)Ohio State(11-1, B1G champ)
(8)UCF(11-0, G5 rep)
(11)Washington(9-3, PAC champ)

LEFT OUT: #7 Michigan (10-2)

QUARTERFINALS
December 1, 2018
Arlington:(1)Alabama v. (8)Washington
Atlanta: (2)Clemson v. (7)UCF
Indianapolis: (3)Notre Dame v. (6)Ohio St.
Las Vegas: (4)Georgia v. (5)Oklahoma

SEMIFINALS
December 29, 2018
COTTON BOWL:(2)Clemson v. (3)Notre Dame
ORANGE BOWL: (1)Alabama v. (4)Georgia

OTHER NY6 BOWL GAMES
December 29, 2018
(Based on pre-CCG rankings)
PEACH BOWL: #7 Michigan v. #10 LSU
January 1, 2019
ROSE BOWL: #11 Washington v. #6 Ohio St.
SUGAR BOWL: #5 Oklahoma v. #9 Florida
FIESTA BOWL: #8 UCF v. #12 Penn St.

That isn't a bad setup but I kinda hope they keep it at 4 and let the 4 highest P5 champs in.

Other than Alabama v. Georgia, CCG weekend was pretty lame last year. Similar trend for most CCGs lately.

I'd much rather #4 Georgia v. #5 Oklahoma, #3 Notre Dame v. #6 Ohio St., #1 Alabama v. #11 Washington, and #2 Clemson v. #8 UCF type games instead of:

#2 Clemson v. unranked Pitt
#5 Oklahoma v. #14 Texas (rematch)
#6 Ohio St. v. #21 Northwestern
#8 UCF v. unranked Memphis (rematch)
#11 Washington v . 7 utah (rematch)

(04-17-2019 06:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 05:37 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 04:23 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 04:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The solution is an 8 team playoff---the 5-1-2 model. The 5 P5 champs, a conditional slot for the highest ranked G5 winner, and 2 at large berths.

The NY6 bowls can serve as the quarter and semi-final sites. Quarter finals are played on or around New Years Day. Semis are played mid-January. National title the Saturday night before the Super Bowl. The Semi-final sites will still hold a bowl on/near NYD pitting 4 of the best non-playoff teams, with geography/traditional tie ins. (i.e. If the Rose Bowl is a quarterfinal host site on New Years Day they'd host the top Big Ten and Pac 12 team not in the playoff)

Notre Dame would not like this change.

Why not? I think that they would be happy with the two at large berths.

Because it would reduce the number of playoff spots Notre Dame is eligible for from 4 to 2?

Yup.

And because of the 6 auto Q slots Notre Dame would still have to go undefeated just for a chance to get into the playoff. And now they’d have to win2 games just to get to the NCC.

And what if #1 Clemson and #2 Alabama get upset in each of their CCG?

See ya in a NY6 bowl 12-0 Notre Dame.

(04-17-2019 05:30 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 01:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 11:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 10:46 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 08:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  But its not as easy as he says. You have to either put the bowls at risk by having quarterfinals in December or put attendance in the semi-finals at risk as you try to do 3 games in a row and manouver around the NFL playoffs.

The biggest issue is TV. If ESPN or Fox or anyone else was offering to double the CFP TV money to get an 8-team playoff, it would have happened already. Money makes it easy to deal with every other issue. The schedule will work itself out, they'll play the first round at the higher seeds' home stadiums so that the TV cameras don't have to hide tens of thousands of empty seats at neutral sites, etc.

And if the TV money on offer isn't much more than the current money, there won't be an expanded playoff, just as March Madness didn't expand to 96 teams, even though the coaches wanted it, because CBS and Turner were not interested enough to significantly increase the huge amount they already pay to the NCAA.

I'm fine with the bowls taking the hit by having the quarterfinals at home sites in December. But a lot of people aren't. The losers aren't going to be enthused about going to a bowl game. You would almost have to have the losers play each other.

Can't see the loser of a playoff game going to a bowl game after that loss. NCAA basketball tournament losers don't jump into the NIT after being eliminated from the NCAA tournament. The bowls will have to make do with the 60 or 70 bowl-eligible teams that are not in the playoff. It's just another thing that boils down to money. If there's enough TV money involved, no one will be too bothered that the bowl guys get a team farther down the totem pole than the team they used to get.

Conference championship losers play in a bowl game in the current system. The conference championship games are similar to a pre-Final Four NCAA round.

TCU coach Gary Patterson proposed a CFP expansion that supplants the conference championship games. The money for a CFP quarterfinal round would likely be better than the money from the various CCGs.

https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/col...28585.html


I believe it would depend on when the CFP early round games were played as to whether CFP losers would still play in a bowl game.

FWIW, I love the idea to use Atlanta, DFW, Las Vegas, and Indianapolis as the CFP quarterfinal venues, with regional hosts, in lieu of CCGs. Based on 2018 pre-CCG rankings, this is what the CFP quarterfinals could have looked like:

PARTICIPANTS
(1)Alabama(12-0, SEC champ)
(2)Clemson(12-0, ACC champ)
(3)Notre Dame(12-0, at large)
(4)Georgia(11-1, at large)
(5)Oklahoma(11-1, B12 champ)
(6)Ohio State(11-1, B1G champ)
(8)UCF(11-0, G5 rep)
(11)Washington(9-3, PAC champ)

LEFT OUT: #7 Michigan (10-2)

QUARTERFINALS
December 1, 2018
Arlington:(1)Alabama v. (8)Washington
Atlanta: (2)Clemson v. (7)UCF
Indianapolis: (3)Notre Dame v. (6)Ohio St.
Las Vegas: (4)Georgia v. (5)Oklahoma

SEMIFINALS
December 29, 2018
COTTON BOWL:(2)Clemson v. (3)Notre Dame
ORANGE BOWL: (1)Alabama v. (4)Georgia

OTHER NY6 BOWL GAMES
December 29, 2018
(Based on pre-CCG rankings)
PEACH BOWL: #7 Michigan v. #10 LSU
January 1, 2019
ROSE BOWL: #11 Washington v. #6 Ohio St.
SUGAR BOWL: #5 Oklahoma v. #9 Florida
FIESTA BOWL: #8 UCF v. #12 Penn St.

The SEC CCG is far more lucrative than any quarter final figure kicked around and what's more we don't have to split it among other conference participants. It's a non starter for the SEC.

(04-17-2019 03:31 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think the issue with the lost of viewership and interest in recent years is because people are tired of the same teams in the playoffs. Throwing UCF, Boise State, Fresno State, Houston and some others into the playoffs picture could draw people in.

David I have to agree.

The big tent of NCAA basketball with 353 teams makes every D1 fan feel like a stakeholder in the outcome.

(04-17-2019 06:19 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 06:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 05:37 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 04:23 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 04:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The solution is an 8 team playoff---the 5-1-2 model. The 5 P5 champs, a conditional slot for the highest ranked G5 winner, and 2 at large berths.

The NY6 bowls can serve as the quarter and semi-final sites. Quarter finals are played on or around New Years Day. Semis are played mid-January. National title the Saturday night before the Super Bowl. The Semi-final sites will still hold a bowl on/near NYD pitting 4 of the best non-playoff teams, with geography/traditional tie ins. (i.e. If the Rose Bowl is a quarterfinal host site on New Years Day they'd host the top Big Ten and Pac 12 team not in the playoff)

Notre Dame would not like this change.

Why not? I think that they would be happy with the two at large berths.

Because it would reduce the number of playoff spots Notre Dame is eligible for from 4 to 2?

Yup.

And because of the 6 auto Q slots Notre Dame would still have to go undefeated just for a chance to get into the playoff. And now they’d have to win2 games just to get to the NCC.

And what if #1 Clemson and #2 Alabama get upset in each of their CCG?

See ya in a NY6 bowl 12-0 Notre Dame.

Nah, I think that ND would be ok with this.

It still gives them access to the playoffs as a football independent.

ND always has to go undefeated to even have a shot at the playoffs, even now.

For ND, it would still beat the hell out of a P4 champs only format.

If they stick with 4 teams, they need to re-emphasize the importance of winning conference championships.

It should be the 4 most deserving teams, not necessarily the 4 best teams. Every team in a P5 conference gets a shot. If they finish undefeated, they are almost guaranteed a shot at the playoffs. Now if you lose your conference, well, you had your shot, sorry.

The selection committee made a big mistake in 2016 when they chose Ohio State over a conference champion. No way OSU should have been chosen over PSU, who won the Big Ten and beat OSU head to head. Was PSU actually better? That's debatable but they won the right games when they needed to, and OSU did not, and Michigan did not.

Same in 2017. Bama should not have been chosen over a conference champion. Bama had their shot and they blew it. Does it matter that they went on to win the national championship? No, because first they should have won their conference. They did not deserve to play for a national championship.

They really should emphasize picking the 4 best conference champions. At the same time maybe they should tweak the rules for the CCG to help make sure the 2 best teams are playing in the CCG, and change it so that Notre Dame can play in the ACC CCG.

8 team playoff. Then again the G5 should be suing for a 4 team playoff let alone 6.

(04-17-2019 08:40 PM)goofus Wrote:  If they stick with 4 teams, they need to re-emphasize the importance of winning conference championships.

It should be the 4 most deserving teams, not necessarily the 4 best teams. Every team in a P5 conference gets a shot. If they finish undefeated, they are almost guaranteed a shot at the playoffs. Now if you lose your conference, well, you had your shot, sorry.

The selection committee made a big mistake in 2016 when they chose Ohio State over a conference champion. No way OSU should have been chosen over PSU, who won the Big Ten and beat OSU head to head. Was PSU actually better? That's debatable but they won the right games when they needed to, and OSU did not, and Michigan did not.

Same in 2017. Bama should not have been chosen over a conference champion. Bama had their shot and they blew it. Does it matter that they went on to win the national championship? No, because first they should have won their conference. They did not deserve to play for a national championship.

They really should emphasize picking the 4 best conference champions. At the same time maybe they should tweak the rules for the CCG to help make sure the 2 best teams are playing in the CCG, and change it so that Notre Dame can play in the ACC CCG.

Oh, no no no. If ND wants to prove itself in a CCG, it would have to join a conference in full. The ACC isn't going to let them into their CCG with only 5 conference games.

(04-18-2019 06:04 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 08:40 PM)goofus Wrote:  If they stick with 4 teams, they need to re-emphasize the importance of winning conference championships.

It should be the 4 most deserving teams, not necessarily the 4 best teams. Every team in a P5 conference gets a shot. If they finish undefeated, they are almost guaranteed a shot at the playoffs. Now if you lose your conference, well, you had your shot, sorry.

The selection committee made a big mistake in 2016 when they chose Ohio State over a conference champion. No way OSU should have been chosen over PSU, who won the Big Ten and beat OSU head to head. Was PSU actually better? That's debatable but they won the right games when they needed to, and OSU did not, and Michigan did not.

Same in 2017. Bama should not have been chosen over a conference champion. Bama had their shot and they blew it. Does it matter that they went on to win the national championship? No, because first they should have won their conference. They did not deserve to play for a national championship.

They really should emphasize picking the 4 best conference champions. At the same time maybe they should tweak the rules for the CCG to help make sure the 2 best teams are playing in the CCG, and change it so that Notre Dame can play in the ACC CCG.

Oh, no no no. If ND wants to prove itself in a CCG, it would have to join a conference in full. The ACC isn't going to let them into their CCG with only 5 conference games.

Agreed. It is a dumb idea. ND would not want this, anyway.

Here are ESPN's odds for making the playoffs this coming season:

(04-18-2019 08:33 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Here are ESPN's odds for making the playoffs this coming season:

I like this view of things better than the graph you posted, it's more telling.

Good old Barry needs to shut his pie hole about this and just field a team worthy of the playoffs.

Courtesy of 247 sports:

TEAM - CHANCE TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS - CHANCE TO WIN THE NATIONAL TITLE

Clemson - 83% -36%

Alabama - 71% - 27%

Michigan - 41% - 7%

Georgia - 40% - 8%

Oklahoma - 35% - 5%

LSU - 32% - 6%

Notre Dame - 28% - 4%

Oregon - 14% - 1%

Florida - 10% - 1%

Penn State - 8% - <1%

Auburn - 7% - <1%

Ohio State - 6% - <1%

Michigan State - 5% - <1%

Washington - 4% - <1%

Texas A&M - 4% - <1%

(04-18-2019 09:34 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 08:33 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Here are ESPN's odds for making the playoffs this coming season:

I like this view of things better than the graph you posted, it's more telling.

Good old Barry needs to shut his pie hole about this and just field a team worthy of the playoffs.

Courtesy of 247 sports:

TEAM - CHANCE TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS - CHANCE TO WIN THE NATIONAL TITLE

Clemson - 83% -36%

Alabama - 71% - 27%

Michigan - 41% - 7%

Georgia - 40% - 8%

Oklahoma - 35% - 5%

LSU - 32% - 6%

Notre Dame - 28% - 4%

Oregon - 14% - 1%

Florida - 10% - 1%

Penn State - 8% - <1%

Auburn - 7% - <1%

Ohio State - 6% - <1%

Michigan State - 5% - <1%

Washington - 4% - <1%

Texas A&M - 4% - <1%

Seems to think it’s gonna be a real down year for Texas. Georgia gets ND so I think if they win that it’s a 2 team SEC this year. Oklahoma will be there too.

Unless they lose week 1 to Houston again lmao

(04-17-2019 07:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 05:30 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 01:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 11:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 10:46 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The biggest issue is TV. If ESPN or Fox or anyone else was offering to double the CFP TV money to get an 8-team playoff, it would have happened already. Money makes it easy to deal with every other issue. The schedule will work itself out, they'll play the first round at the higher seeds' home stadiums so that the TV cameras don't have to hide tens of thousands of empty seats at neutral sites, etc.

And if the TV money on offer isn't much more than the current money, there won't be an expanded playoff, just as March Madness didn't expand to 96 teams, even though the coaches wanted it, because CBS and Turner were not interested enough to significantly increase the huge amount they already pay to the NCAA.

I'm fine with the bowls taking the hit by having the quarterfinals at home sites in December. But a lot of people aren't. The losers aren't going to be enthused about going to a bowl game. You would almost have to have the losers play each other.

Can't see the loser of a playoff game going to a bowl game after that loss. NCAA basketball tournament losers don't jump into the NIT after being eliminated from the NCAA tournament. The bowls will have to make do with the 60 or 70 bowl-eligible teams that are not in the playoff. It's just another thing that boils down to money. If there's enough TV money involved, no one will be too bothered that the bowl guys get a team farther down the totem pole than the team they used to get.

Conference championship losers play in a bowl game in the current system. The conference championship games are similar to a pre-Final Four NCAA round.

TCU coach Gary Patterson proposed a CFP expansion that supplants the conference championship games. The money for a CFP quarterfinal round would likely be better than the money from the various CCGs.

https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/col...28585.html


I believe it would depend on when the CFP early round games were played as to whether CFP losers would still play in a bowl game.

FWIW, I love the idea to use Atlanta, DFW, Las Vegas, and Indianapolis as the CFP quarterfinal venues, with regional hosts, in lieu of CCGs. Based on 2018 pre-CCG rankings, this is what the CFP quarterfinals could have looked like:

PARTICIPANTS
(1)Alabama(12-0, SEC champ)
(2)Clemson(12-0, ACC champ)
(3)Notre Dame(12-0, at large)
(4)Georgia(11-1, at large)
(5)Oklahoma(11-1, B12 champ)
(6)Ohio State(11-1, B1G champ)
(8)UCF(11-0, G5 rep)
(11)Washington(9-3, PAC champ)

LEFT OUT: #7 Michigan (10-2)

QUARTERFINALS
December 1, 2018
Arlington:(1)Alabama v. (8)Washington
Atlanta: (2)Clemson v. (7)UCF
Indianapolis: (3)Notre Dame v. (6)Ohio St.
Las Vegas: (4)Georgia v. (5)Oklahoma

SEMIFINALS
December 29, 2018
COTTON BOWL:(2)Clemson v. (3)Notre Dame
ORANGE BOWL: (1)Alabama v. (4)Georgia

OTHER NY6 BOWL GAMES
December 29, 2018
(Based on pre-CCG rankings)
PEACH BOWL: #7 Michigan v. #10 LSU
January 1, 2019
ROSE BOWL: #11 Washington v. #6 Ohio St.
SUGAR BOWL: #5 Oklahoma v. #9 Florida
FIESTA BOWL: #8 UCF v. #12 Penn St.

The SEC CCG is far more lucrative than any quarter final figure kicked around and what's more we don't have to split it among other conference participants. It's a non starter for the SEC.

Yeah, it's the same with the Big Ten, too. The conference championship games in football aren't going away just as the conference tournaments in basketball aren't going away (even though those are arguably even more unnecessary for the power conferences with the NCAA Tournament format). These are money-making machines with revenue that 100% stays with that conference and doesn't need to be shared.

As I've stated previously, I believe that we'll eventually get to a playoff system with auto-bids (or maybe more appropriately "contract bids" as I'll note in a moment) for the 5 power conferences. There may or may not be a bid reserved for the top G5 team (I tend to think that there will be some type of rule for them). 2 or 3 at-larges still provide schools like Notre Dame or top tier schools that didn't happen to win their conferences some access and I believe will actually enhance the drama of the regular season (as there will be a lot more games with playoff implications compared to today) just as expansion to the 4-team playoff did (even though a lot of traditionalists argued otherwise at the time).

At the end of the day, I believe that an expansion of the system will have to be in *addition* to the current system as opposed to taking anything away. Removing a regular season game or any conference championship games is a 100% non-starter - any viable proposal must build on top of the existing structure without a single dime being taken away from the P5. To me, that still points to using the bowls as the quarterfinals and then having the semifinals and final in January as opposed to having the playoffs start in December.

Also, ultimately, what will drive an expansion of the playoff system is that the P5 conferences will want a *guaranteed* spot for each of their champs. A 99% chance isn't good enough - it needs to be 100% ironclad access for those teams without any caveats. We can debate all day whether that's right or wrong, but the entire driving force behind any 8-team expansion will be 100% reserved spots for the P5 champs. That's the only reason why leagues like the Big Ten (which openly argued *against* the 4-team playoff for decades) have within a short amount of time suddenly started talking about expanding the playoff.

Here's another key point: the bowls are the legal contractual mechanism that would allow for the P5 to have auto-bids while the G5 conferences don't get that benefit. Note that if the P5 just get together and collectively decide to create a playoff system where they should be the only ones that get auto-bids, then that's a potential antitrust issue. However, if each P5 conference individually signs an agreement to provide its champion to a contract bowl (e.g. Rose, Sugar, Orange, etc.) just as they have done for many years and then state that any G5 conference could join those ranks if they have the market power to get a similar agreement with a contract bowl, then it turns it into a free market-based system based on separate individual choices and agreements as opposed to a collective system system based on a single agreement (which is where anticompetitive legal issues come into play). That's why I still think the bowls will be used as the quarterfinals - that's where the P5 can get "contract bids" (with the guaranteed revenue that comes with such bids) in a manner that the G5 very likely won't and the P5 can argue that it's simply the free market at work (as opposed to collusion among the P5).

Regardless, just K.I.S.S. - 8-team playoffs with the 5 P5 champs, 1 G5 champ, and 2 at-larges using the traditional bowls as the quarterfinals. All of the half-measures (e.g. the suggestion of a 6-team playoff) or trying to define the "6 top conferences" is trying to introduce complexities to an expanded playoff system that don't really serve anyone well. Once again, if there's ever an 8-team playoff within our lifetimes (and I'm going to wager that there will be, and maybe sooner rather than later), it's going to be driven by the need (not just desire) to have all 5 power conference champions having 100% guaranteed ironclad spots in the at playoff. Anything less pretty much negates the M.O. for the powers that be in control of college football to make an expansion move.