(05-30-2019 12:23 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  I don't see how it can't be 5-1-2 with Notre Dame/BYU/Army/any Independent getting an automatic at-large bid if they're in the top 6 of the CFP rankings, along with the G5 top ranked champion must be in the top 16 minimum. Also all P5 champions (in any situation) must be in the top 16 as well.

Either that or straight 8. None of this P5 champions yet no G5 top ranked champion...

Yeah, that's going to fly... because the G5 have so much leverage that the P5 are going to give up guaranteed bids for themselves.

(05-30-2019 01:45 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(05-30-2019 12:23 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  I don't see how it can't be 5-1-2 with Notre Dame/BYU/Army/any Independent getting an automatic at-large bid if they're in the top 6 of the CFP rankings, along with the G5 top ranked champion must be in the top 16 minimum. Also all P5 champions (in any situation) must be in the top 16 as well.

Either that or straight 8. None of this P5 champions yet no G5 top ranked champion...

Yeah, that's going to fly... because the G5 have so much leverage that the P5 are going to give up guaranteed bids for themselves.

So I'm guessing you're some 5-0-3 fan for some reason???

Everybody complains for proper access for everyone. So I'm not sure why you're quoting my post when others are saying the same thing. Notre Dame would want access to an 8 team playoff... ah well, if the P5 has so much leverage they can find other viewers to watch. Just abolish G5 football already.

And an independent top 6 autobid provision would be Notre Dame/BYU/Army/NMSU/Libery/UMASS is 6 schools, hardly a Group of 5 which you're talking about. So basically we're arguing about the inclusion of Notre Dame as an independent here in place of an at large spot at 5 or 6...

They should just get rid of the G5 anyway and start a new subdivision of football instead of the madness and joke show that is college football playoffs and scheduling. P5's have to schedule P5's, no FCS, no G5. Don't use your cupcake games to prop up how powerful your conferences are.

To me, all of this talking about convoluted BCS - type provisions hammers home the value of Straight 8.

There's no advantages for anyone, nobody has any automatic entry. Legal issues are zero, etc.

You can also do five spots locked for the highest ranking P5 champs AND ND. 6 schools in contention into the last weekend, one school leaves.

Then clump BYU and the rest of the Indy's with the G5 for one AQ spot (highest ranked).

The fact that people are arguing against arbitrary selections is pointless because unless you put the cutoff at 6 teams, 8 teams automatically means 2 At-Larges and an arbitrary selection of the two best non-AQ schools. Can't have it both ways.

(05-30-2019 06:34 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  

(05-30-2019 01:45 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(05-30-2019 12:23 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  I don't see how it can't be 5-1-2 with Notre Dame/BYU/Army/any Independent getting an automatic at-large bid if they're in the top 6 of the CFP rankings, along with the G5 top ranked champion must be in the top 16 minimum. Also all P5 champions (in any situation) must be in the top 16 as well.

Either that or straight 8. None of this P5 champions yet no G5 top ranked champion...

Yeah, that's going to fly... because the G5 have so much leverage that the P5 are going to give up guaranteed bids for themselves.

So I'm guessing you're some 5-0-3 fan for some reason???

Everybody complains for proper access for everyone. So I'm not sure why you're quoting my post when others are saying the same thing. Notre Dame would want access to an 8 team playoff... ah well, if the P5 has so much leverage they can find other viewers to watch. Just abolish G5 football already.

And an independent top 6 autobid provision would be Notre Dame/BYU/Army/NMSU/Libery/UMASS is 6 schools, hardly a Group of 5 which you're talking about. So basically we're arguing about the inclusion of Notre Dame as an independent here in place of an at large spot at 5 or 6...

They should just get rid of the G5 anyway and start a new subdivision of football instead of the madness and joke show that is college football playoffs and scheduling. P5's have to schedule P5's, no FCS, no G5. Don't use your cupcake games to prop up how powerful your conferences are.

P5 only scheduling would mean only 50% of them are bowl eligible instead of 80% like we have now.

The whole house of cards begins to collapse.

(05-30-2019 09:07 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  You can also do five spots locked for the highest ranking P5 champs AND ND. 6 schools in contention into the last weekend, one school leaves.

Then clump BYU and the rest of the Indy's with the G5 for one AQ spot (highest ranked).

The fact that people are arguing against arbitrary selections is pointless because unless you put the cutoff at 6 teams, 8 teams automatically means 2 At-Larges and an arbitrary selection of the two best non-AQ schools. Can't have it both ways.

That should be an absolute non-starter.

That is giving a single school the status of a conference. They have already been willing to cut back ND's $$s.

The point which you don't seem to get is that you want to minimize the arbitrary nature. 2 wildcards instead of 8 is a significant improvement. And the P5 champs get the opportunity to prove it on the field.

(05-30-2019 02:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-30-2019 09:07 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  You can also do five spots locked for the highest ranking P5 champs AND ND. 6 schools in contention into the last weekend, one school leaves.

Then clump BYU and the rest of the Indy's with the G5 for one AQ spot (highest ranked).

The fact that people are arguing against arbitrary selections is pointless because unless you put the cutoff at 6 teams, 8 teams automatically means 2 At-Larges and an arbitrary selection of the two best non-AQ schools. Can't have it both ways.

That should be an absolute non-starter.

That is giving a single school the status of a conference. They have already been willing to cut back ND's $$s.

The point which you don't seem to get is that you want to minimize the arbitrary nature. 2 wildcards instead of 8 is a significant improvement. And the P5 champs get the opportunity to prove it on the field.

IMO, if you want to minimize the arbitrary nature of playoffs, then you should totally be against automatic spots for anyone. There's really not much that is more arbitrary than giving say the Big 12 champ automatically one of the 8 playoff spots, when all they did was "prove", in a dicey manner, that they were better - in conference games only- than 9 other Big 12 teams. They didn't prove anything against B1G, or ACC, or other teams, so why on earth should they automatically get a playoff spot?

The least arbitrary way to do an 8-team playoff would be with auto-bids for nobody. That also addresses your concern that Notre Dame not get special treatment. They wouldn't, nobody would.

(05-30-2019 04:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-30-2019 02:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-30-2019 09:07 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  You can also do five spots locked for the highest ranking P5 champs AND ND. 6 schools in contention into the last weekend, one school leaves.

Then clump BYU and the rest of the Indy's with the G5 for one AQ spot (highest ranked).

The fact that people are arguing against arbitrary selections is pointless because unless you put the cutoff at 6 teams, 8 teams automatically means 2 At-Larges and an arbitrary selection of the two best non-AQ schools. Can't have it both ways.

That should be an absolute non-starter.

That is giving a single school the status of a conference. They have already been willing to cut back ND's $$s.

The point which you don't seem to get is that you want to minimize the arbitrary nature. 2 wildcards instead of 8 is a significant improvement. And the P5 champs get the opportunity to prove it on the field.

IMO, if you want to minimize the arbitrary nature of playoffs, then you should totally be against automatic spots for anyone. There's really not much that is more arbitrary than giving say the Big 12 champ automatically one of the 8 playoff spots, when all they did was "prove", in a dicey manner, that they were better - in conference games only- than 9 other Big 12 teams. They didn't prove anything against B1G, or ACC, or other teams, so why on earth should they automatically get a playoff spot?

The least arbitrary way to do an 8-team playoff would be with auto-bids for nobody. That also addresses your concern that Notre Dame not get special treatment. They wouldn't, nobody would.

Having it picked by a room full of retired guys in Dallas is the ultimate in arbitrary.

(05-30-2019 12:28 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-30-2019 06:34 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  

(05-30-2019 01:45 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(05-30-2019 12:23 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  I don't see how it can't be 5-1-2 with Notre Dame/BYU/Army/any Independent getting an automatic at-large bid if they're in the top 6 of the CFP rankings, along with the G5 top ranked champion must be in the top 16 minimum. Also all P5 champions (in any situation) must be in the top 16 as well.

Either that or straight 8. None of this P5 champions yet no G5 top ranked champion...

Yeah, that's going to fly... because the G5 have so much leverage that the P5 are going to give up guaranteed bids for themselves.

So I'm guessing you're some 5-0-3 fan for some reason???

Everybody complains for proper access for everyone. So I'm not sure why you're quoting my post when others are saying the same thing. Notre Dame would want access to an 8 team playoff... ah well, if the P5 has so much leverage they can find other viewers to watch. Just abolish G5 football already.

And an independent top 6 autobid provision would be Notre Dame/BYU/Army/NMSU/Libery/UMASS is 6 schools, hardly a Group of 5 which you're talking about. So basically we're arguing about the inclusion of Notre Dame as an independent here in place of an at large spot at 5 or 6...

They should just get rid of the G5 anyway and start a new subdivision of football instead of the madness and joke show that is college football playoffs and scheduling. P5's have to schedule P5's, no FCS, no G5. Don't use your cupcake games to prop up how powerful your conferences are.

P5 only scheduling would mean only 50% of them are bowl eligible instead of 80% like we have now.

The whole house of cards begins to collapse.

Obviously, but then you could have P5 bowls, G5 bowls, FCS playoffs. Some of the P5 would look a little less invincible without G5 and FCS tune-up games would they?

Let's stop acting like the G5 is on a level playing field or that they (being in Division 1) somehow have a chance to be in the playoffs like every other sport gives a chance to for their division/conference/etc champion.

(04-29-2019 12:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  http://footballscoop.com/news/college-fo...-anywhere/

Quote:There’s an assumption that the College Football Playoff is guaranteed to move from its 4-team format to eight because, well, the only thing rich people like more than money is more money, and there’s certainly money to be made in expanding the Playoff. Every sport has expanded its playoff format at least once, including college football. The BCS began as a 4-bowl rotation in the 1998 season, and by 2006 the system added a standalone championship game that rotated among the four original bowl sites.

But the Playoff Expansion Crowd assumes one thing that shouldn’t be assumed: Someone — or, really, a lot of someones — has to actually make the change happen, and right now there’s zero desire for such a change.

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey spoke at an Associated Press Sports Editors gathering in Birmingham on Monday and affirmed his support for the 4-team format.

Of course, Sankey would say that. His conference is the only one to go 6-for-5 in placing teams in the field over the Playoff’s first half-decade of existence.

Setting aside the unlikelihood of expansion without support of the SEC, let’s see how Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott, whose league is 2-for-5 and has missed the field the past two seasons, feels.

“Most importantly the selection committee feels like the protocol works really well for them,” Scott told USA Today. “That’s one of the things we’re (evaluating). … Are there ambiguities around the data that are problematic, is there confusion, does the committee want more direction? I think (the Playoff’s selection criteria) has really stood the test of time very nicely.

“I mean, by design if you’ve got a committee of 13 highly competent, skilled people who come at things from different vantage points, it is a human decision and we are leaving them latitude. It was designed believing every year could be a little different and you need to leave appropriate latitude for (the committee) to make judgment calls.”

Quote:“After playing a rugged season, the last thing these great student athletes need is to play yet another football game,” South Carolina president Harris Pastides told 247Sports in March following a vote of SEC presidents in support of the 4-team format. “That is something I’m confident all five power conferences will be supportive of.”

Pastides cuts at the core issue of playoff expansion: How do you make it work? Either you push the season even further into January, which no one wants, or you begin the Playoff in the middle of December, which cuts into awards season, the early signing period, final exams, and the post-regular season mini-breather that has been built into college football’s schedule for as long as the sport’s been around.

An 8-team playoff would also require the championship teams to play a 16-game season — which, again, no one wants — or for conferences to eliminate their own championship games, which no one wants.

Those are just meaningless cliché quotes. You won't keep five conferences happy with four slots and all it will take to tear up the contract is for TV to offer enough money. Everything is for sale.

(05-30-2019 02:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-30-2019 09:07 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  You can also do five spots locked for the highest ranking P5 champs AND ND. 6 schools in contention into the last weekend, one school leaves.

Then clump BYU and the rest of the Indy's with the G5 for one AQ spot (highest ranked).

The fact that people are arguing against arbitrary selections is pointless because unless you put the cutoff at 6 teams, 8 teams automatically means 2 At-Larges and an arbitrary selection of the two best non-AQ schools. Can't have it both ways.

That should be an absolute non-starter.

That is giving a single school the status of a conference. They have already been willing to cut back ND's $$s.

The point which you don't seem to get is that you want to minimize the arbitrary nature. 2 wildcards instead of 8 is a significant improvement. And the P5 champs get the opportunity to prove it on the field.

This absolutely the whole point of the conversation.

At the moment we have a selection of four "arbitrary" teams to the playoff which is dissatisfying to half of the P5 fans.

Let the CCGs serve as the first round of the playoff. That sets the P5. Then "select" the highest ranking G5 Champ by current ranking scheme.

If we continue with this format. Then the two highest ranking teams out the rest would get the wild card slots.

This makes everyone happy.

Example. If Notre Dame is undefeated or with one loss, it will probably get the Wild Card slot; however, a two loss ND means the runnerups from the P5 CCGs will bump Notre Dame. This is because ACC is a defacto ACC member

Also, BYU is undefeated then it gets a little screwy again because they will need a couple of big wins against the P5 to solidify a wildcard spot. Liberty will never make it to the playoffs unless it beats UVA and VT in the same year and go undefeated and all the P5 champs have at least two losses. IMO

Interesting observation here about future non-conference scheduling and the CFP.

https://theathletic.com/988879/2019/05/2...-and-home/

Quote:[Georgia AD] McGarity said he and head coach Kirby Smart are taking that scheduling approach for this particular reason, in addition to enticing fans with a more attractive home slate. “We both feel that (the Playoff) is going to eight teams, eventually,” McGarity said.

Considering the dates of the home-and-homes scheduled — with so many of them set after 2025, when the initial CFP contract ends — it’s fair to surmise that to McGarity, “eventually” could coincide with the conclusion of the contract with ESPN.

One industry insider pointed to the increase in scheduling home-and-home series between Power Five opponents — Oklahoma, Alabama, Florida, Texas, USC and others in addition to Georgia — and echoed McGarity’s line of thinking. “People are starting to behave in a way that suggests they think an eight-team Playoff is going to happen,” the insider said. In an eight-team format, a good two-loss team that challenged itself should have a strong chance to make the field. Through five years of the four-team field, no two-loss teams have made the Playoff.

When asked to expand upon his comments by The Athletic later on Tuesday, McGarity declined but added, “We believe that’s where things are headed over the next decade.”

(05-31-2019 06:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Interesting observation here about future non-conference scheduling and the CFP.

https://theathletic.com/988879/2019/05/2...-and-home/

Quote:[Georgia AD] McGarity said he and head coach Kirby Smart are taking that scheduling approach for this particular reason, in addition to enticing fans with a more attractive home slate. “We both feel that (the Playoff) is going to eight teams, eventually,” McGarity said.

Considering the dates of the home-and-homes scheduled — with so many of them set after 2025, when the initial CFP contract ends — it’s fair to surmise that to McGarity, “eventually” could coincide with the conclusion of the contract with ESPN.

One industry insider pointed to the increase in scheduling home-and-home series between Power Five opponents — Oklahoma, Alabama, Florida, Texas, USC and others in addition to Georgia — and echoed McGarity’s line of thinking. “People are starting to behave in a way that suggests they think an eight-team Playoff is going to happen,” the insider said. In an eight-team format, a good two-loss team that challenged itself should have a strong chance to make the field. Through five years of the four-team field, no two-loss teams have made the Playoff.

When asked to expand upon his comments by The Athletic later on Tuesday, McGarity declined but added, “We believe that’s where things are headed over the next decade.”

... and FWIW, a "good two-loss team" is more likely to make the field with a Straight 8 system than with a 5-1-2 system, where there are only two at-large spots to compete for.

(05-31-2019 09:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2019 06:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Interesting observation here about future non-conference scheduling and the CFP.

https://theathletic.com/988879/2019/05/2...-and-home/

Quote:[Georgia AD] McGarity said he and head coach Kirby Smart are taking that scheduling approach for this particular reason, in addition to enticing fans with a more attractive home slate. “We both feel that (the Playoff) is going to eight teams, eventually,” McGarity said.

Considering the dates of the home-and-homes scheduled — with so many of them set after 2025, when the initial CFP contract ends — it’s fair to surmise that to McGarity, “eventually” could coincide with the conclusion of the contract with ESPN.

One industry insider pointed to the increase in scheduling home-and-home series between Power Five opponents — Oklahoma, Alabama, Florida, Texas, USC and others in addition to Georgia — and echoed McGarity’s line of thinking. “People are starting to behave in a way that suggests they think an eight-team Playoff is going to happen,” the insider said. In an eight-team format, a good two-loss team that challenged itself should have a strong chance to make the field. Through five years of the four-team field, no two-loss teams have made the Playoff.

When asked to expand upon his comments by The Athletic later on Tuesday, McGarity declined but added, “We believe that’s where things are headed over the next decade.”

... and FWIW, a "good two-loss team" is more likely to make the field with a Straight 8 system than with a 5-1-2 system, where there are only two at-large spots to compete for.

It will be interesting to see what happens. Coaches aren't always in the loop as several I've known have over the years been wrong about the direction of things. If we go divisionles further expansion becomes more likely. If it does there will be no need for 8. If we don't go divisionless and and the SEC's renewal goes as anticipated that might lock us into status quo. IMO, that's when a move to an 8 team playoff gains traction. If we go there the push by the P conferences will be for a straight 8, at least by the SEC and Big 10 who will be thinking 2 entrants. And so far whenever the SEC and Big 10 are in agreement on a measure, it has passed without exception.

BTW: If we are going to talk about Straight 8's lets just go ahead with the V8 it was just as powerful, more compact, and much easier to work with.

(05-30-2019 08:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, all of this talking about convoluted BCS - type provisions hammers home the value of Straight 8.

There's no advantages for anyone, nobody has any automatic entry. Legal issues are zero, etc.

And that may point to the fact that Straight 8 has no advantage over the current, Straight 4.

B12CG: Yes, this conference would benefit from an expanded playoff; Texas-Oklahoma is now an elimination game.

ACCCG: Pitt has no shot at either playoff; Clemson is already guaranteed a spot if top 8 and would have to endure a quarterfinal to make 4.

SECCG: Alabama and Georgia are guaranteed spots if top 8 and the CCG becomes an exhibition.

P12CG: merp; even Washington couldn't crack the top 8; no benefit for the Pac 12 either.

BTCCG: Northwestern wasn't making the Top 8; but a conference this good "should" get their champ in the top 8 most years.

G5/ND: I'd imagine a 1-4 finish is less likely than a 5-8 finish, so the scarcity of good finishes among this group would make any expansion preferrable. But they don't hold many cards.

Summation: SEC and ACC would lose if the playoff was expanded this year. Pac-12 would reap no benefit and the Big Ten's main beef is that their champion is not given enough benefit; something that would not change with 8 if a team like Northwestern had won. The Big 12 may be the only conference who would consistently benefit... along with Notre Dame and the G5 who finish outside the Top 4 more often than in.

The only push to change the current, Straight 4 comes from conferences wishing to have an automatic spot in the playoff. This is why I think a Straight 8 won't happen. Are there any parties advocating for expansion without AQs??

(06-01-2019 10:10 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(05-30-2019 08:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, all of this talking about convoluted BCS - type provisions hammers home the value of Straight 8.

There's no advantages for anyone, nobody has any automatic entry. Legal issues are zero, etc.

And that may point to the fact that Straight 8 has no advantage over the current, Straight 4.

What? The value of S8 would be four more spots up for grabs each year, and yes, compared to S4, conferences would benefit while nobody would likely be hurt.

E.g., this past season, and going just by the CFP top 8, the SEC would have got two teams in, Alabama and Georgia, and the B1G, which was shut out entirely in the S4 CFP, would have got two teams in Ohio State and Michigan. And the ACC and Big 12 would have both got the same teams in that they did get in.

And consider the PAC, which was shut out this past season, and has been shut out in 3 of the 5 seasons of the S4 CFP: Had we had an S8 the past five seasons, they would have gotten a total of 6 teams into the playoff instead of two. That's a BIG difference.

Every P5 would have gotten more teams in the playoffs the past 5 years under S8 compared to S4, except the ACC, which would have gotten the same number in.

That's a big benefit.

(05-31-2019 10:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  BTW: If we are going to talk about Straight 8's lets just go ahead with the V8 it was just as powerful, more compact, and much easier to work with.

Excellent ... and I agree, bottom line is nobody knows what will happen with the playoffs in 2025, so it will be interesting to see how it unfolds. Maybe factors that aren't even on anyone's mind right now will loom large then, etc.

(05-31-2019 06:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Interesting observation here about future non-conference scheduling and the CFP.

https://theathletic.com/988879/2019/05/2...-and-home/

Quote:[Georgia AD] McGarity said he and head coach Kirby Smart are taking that scheduling approach for this particular reason, in addition to enticing fans with a more attractive home slate. “We both feel that (the Playoff) is going to eight teams, eventually,” McGarity said.

Considering the dates of the home-and-homes scheduled — with so many of them set after 2025, when the initial CFP contract ends — it’s fair to surmise that to McGarity, “eventually” could coincide with the conclusion of the contract with ESPN.

One industry insider pointed to the increase in scheduling home-and-home series between Power Five opponents — Oklahoma, Alabama, Florida, Texas, USC and others in addition to Georgia — and echoed McGarity’s line of thinking. “People are starting to behave in a way that suggests they think an eight-team Playoff is going to happen,” the insider said. In an eight-team format, a good two-loss team that challenged itself should have a strong chance to make the field. Through five years of the four-team field, no two-loss teams have made the Playoff.

When asked to expand upon his comments by The Athletic later on Tuesday, McGarity declined but added, “We believe that’s where things are headed over the next decade.”

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...schedules/

Similar article from Dennis Dodd