(08-02-2019 09:09 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 01:22 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The 5-1-2 will be pushed for hard by the American, possibly with some support from the MWC. But I don't think it'll happen, to rather if it does, it will require the G5 school be in the top 10.

5-1-2, 1 highest ranked Go5 conference champion or independents. That addresses the anti-trust challenge to the "5".

(08-02-2019 06:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 03:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  If you want to argue a 5-1-2, then you have to include Independents with the G5.

The playoff slot reserved for them should be a "non-P5" slot. Independents other than Notre Dame should be eligible to be chosen, along with any team in an G5 conference.

If there's a sixth reserved slot, it will be for every school not eligible for the first five. Notre Dame does have the 24th ranked Law School in the country, after all.

Maybe it "should be" for everyone outside the "de facto P5" (including Notre Dame) which provide the pool of actually eligible for the current 4 at-large CFP spots, but shoulda woulda coulda, if ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

(08-02-2019 06:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Does anyone seriously think a system will be adopted in which Notre Dame can compete for only two playoff spots, but UAB and San Jose State can compete for three?

That's what a 5-1-2 amounts to, folks.

What it actually amounts to is Notre Dame can compete for two and UAB and San Jose State can compete for one, since no Go5 school will ever be selected at-large, with the possible exception of an undefeated BYU with 6 middling P5 programs on its schedule. Anyone else would certainly get knocked to "n+1"th ranking, where "n" is the ranking of the last at-large school.

However, the "everyone not in the 5" 5-1-2 does open the door for the "Access Bowl" spot to be for the highest ranked non-actual-P5 school not in the CFP. That gives Notre Dame a soft NYD landing in the years it's passed by a Go5, and gives BYU the New Years Day bowl access it wants, so while it gives the Go5 less of what they want, it also brings with it a more powerful support coalition than the Go5 going it alone to push for more access.

Nobody with any power or money ever wants to see Notre Dame lose out on a playoff spot to a lower ranked G5 team. Again, i think those that belive a system that permits this will be implemented are living in a fantasy land.

In contrast, there is zero value to anyone with power and money to having the G5 as a 'support coation' for the playoffs, whatever that means.

(08-02-2019 01:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 01:22 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The 5-1 proposal is Mack Brown's alone. There are too many logistical problems. The Playoff Bowls have to be after Christmas. The reason has to do with why the Bowls exist, for tourism, and people are not likely to go to Bowls before Christmas and stay any length of time (this is why the lesser G5 Bowls are before Christmas, the P5 after).

The 5 is a given. CCGs are losing value and interest rapidly. The B12 had to settle for $10M for the three games CBS bailed out on, whereas the prior ones were for $20M. That is a warning shot to all the P5 that their CCGs need to matter or else they are glorified exhibitions; tOSU even went to the playoff once as the B1G rep without going to the CCG! Playing for an automatic playoff berth would make all 5 CCGs must watch TV, especially with ending divisions and sending the best two. That means more value and money for all the P5 they don't have to share.

There is also the political side. To get the SEC to agree, the playoffs needs to have 3 at-large so the SEC can pretty much guarantee a 2nd school, ditto B1G most years.

The 5-1-2 will be pushed for hard by the American, possibly with some support from the MWC. But I don't think it'll happen, to rather if it does, it will require the G5 school be in the top 10. Only last year's UCF team managed that. But it's hard to see the P5 agreeing to hand over a slot of Notre Dame, Michigan, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Wisconsin, Florida State or UCLA to a G5 school. The P5 do not need any G5 votes to pass this, so 5-3 will win the day. But I can see a top 10 ranking rule that might have benefited UCF.

The access will still be there, and the lowest of the 11 P5 ranked schools will still wind up against the top G5 in the bogey prize game. It is more valuable than a G5 playoff. The 9th and 10th get the miss congeniality consolation bowl as usual. And there will still be a 7th Bowl grabbing up the 12th and 13th or 14th best P5 which is vying to get in the NY6.

The G5 playoff may happen. But I think it'll be for 2nd to 5th conference champions. I can't see the American signing on, and I can't see this G5 CG paying out more than the NY6 access Bowl. Nobody will want to host the G5 Championship game, although the first round playoffs would see a gaggle of pre-Christmas Bowls interested.

That was always the dumbest part of the CFP. The Selection Committee literally told us on multiple occasions that what happened on the field simply didnt matter---OUR OPINION is more important. Thats just a terrible way to run a playoff. If what happens on the field doesnt matter---why have a playoff at all? We already had a system where we crowned our national champion based completely on opinion. A playoff that relies completly on opinion to determine its participants isnt really much different that the mythical poll driven national championships of the past. For a playoff to be real---the participants should be determined as a direct result of the action on the field as much as possible.

So, you're now saying "on the field" should matter.
Because, you know, it was MARKETS when you refused to invite Southern Miss, who dominated all you AAC boys "on the field".
Cake?

(08-02-2019 08:18 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 07:37 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 02:09 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  Iam all for a A5 32 team exclusive, really I hope this happens so that the other 96 teams can just get on with playing real football playoffs and a real national championship, you know one that is decided on the grid iron then let’s see which one the fans like the most

You and I both know who America would rather watch. 2 schools that put 80-100k in the stands or 2 schools who struggle to get 30K?

Marketing is not your strong suit but hey, you and I both know you post with many many different names

LOL. Can you let me know who those names are?

FYI, Marketing is a simple concept. Give the people what they want and don't expect TV to give a lifeline to schools who can't support themselves with out student help.

If remember correctly from my inferior education in Lubbock, this is basic economics of supply and demand. I realize I'm a lowly Tech grad dealing with educated people on a message board.

I haven’t looked into the history but I venture to say that the G5 ought to be able to muster a champ between the 5 leagues that has 10+ wins and should still look good on paper and likely on the field as well. in a historical look I did back to 2004, there are a lot of years where the G5 in 5-1-2 would be a 7 seed or higher.

The fact is that the casual viewer likes a David vs Goliath story so pitting a G5 vs the top seed overall is good for business (and good for avoiding an anti-trust suit). If the G5 rep truly is weaker than the rest of the field then getting a less challenging opponent in the opening round should be a nice reward for #1 overall. It should also give teams motivation to be to try and impress the seeding committee to get that coveted spot.

(08-02-2019 10:29 PM)Noodles Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 01:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 01:22 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The 5-1 proposal is Mack Brown's alone. There are too many logistical problems. The Playoff Bowls have to be after Christmas. The reason has to do with why the Bowls exist, for tourism, and people are not likely to go to Bowls before Christmas and stay any length of time (this is why the lesser G5 Bowls are before Christmas, the P5 after).

The 5 is a given. CCGs are losing value and interest rapidly. The B12 had to settle for $10M for the three games CBS bailed out on, whereas the prior ones were for $20M. That is a warning shot to all the P5 that their CCGs need to matter or else they are glorified exhibitions; tOSU even went to the playoff once as the B1G rep without going to the CCG! Playing for an automatic playoff berth would make all 5 CCGs must watch TV, especially with ending divisions and sending the best two. That means more value and money for all the P5 they don't have to share.

There is also the political side. To get the SEC to agree, the playoffs needs to have 3 at-large so the SEC can pretty much guarantee a 2nd school, ditto B1G most years.

The 5-1-2 will be pushed for hard by the American, possibly with some support from the MWC. But I don't think it'll happen, to rather if it does, it will require the G5 school be in the top 10. Only last year's UCF team managed that. But it's hard to see the P5 agreeing to hand over a slot of Notre Dame, Michigan, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Wisconsin, Florida State or UCLA to a G5 school. The P5 do not need any G5 votes to pass this, so 5-3 will win the day. But I can see a top 10 ranking rule that might have benefited UCF.

The access will still be there, and the lowest of the 11 P5 ranked schools will still wind up against the top G5 in the bogey prize game. It is more valuable than a G5 playoff. The 9th and 10th get the miss congeniality consolation bowl as usual. And there will still be a 7th Bowl grabbing up the 12th and 13th or 14th best P5 which is vying to get in the NY6.

The G5 playoff may happen. But I think it'll be for 2nd to 5th conference champions. I can't see the American signing on, and I can't see this G5 CG paying out more than the NY6 access Bowl. Nobody will want to host the G5 Championship game, although the first round playoffs would see a gaggle of pre-Christmas Bowls interested.

That was always the dumbest part of the CFP. The Selection Committee literally told us on multiple occasions that what happened on the field simply didnt matter---OUR OPINION is more important. Thats just a terrible way to run a playoff. If what happens on the field doesnt matter---why have a playoff at all? We already had a system where we crowned our national champion based completely on opinion. A playoff that relies completly on opinion to determine its participants isnt really much different that the mythical poll driven national championships of the past. For a playoff to be real---the participants should be determined as a direct result of the action on the field as much as possible.

So, you're now saying "on the field" should matter.
Because, you know, it was MARKETS when you refused to invite Southern Miss, who dominated all you AAC boys "on the field".
Cake?

lol...Or, maybe the lesson is to not go 0-12 "on the field" next time realignment heats up. FWIW---I always found it surprising that Tulane got the nod over S Miss in 2012. That move is one of the reasons I keep telling people on this board that academics are often way under weighted by many posters when it comes to realignment. I think market was also a factor---but I actually think the presidents just really liked the idea of associating with such a highly rated academic institution.

(08-02-2019 10:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I haven’t looked into the history but I venture to say that the G5 ought to be able to muster a champ between the 5 leagues that has 10+ wins and should still look good on paper and likely on the field as well. in a historical look I did back to 2004, there are a lot of years where the G5 in 5-1-2 would be a 7 seed or higher.

The fact is that the casual viewer likes a David vs Goliath story so pitting a G5 vs the top seed overall is good for business (and good for avoiding an anti-trust suit). If the G5 rep truly is weaker than the rest of the field then getting a less challenging opponent in the opening round should be a nice reward for #1 overall. It should also give teams motivation to be to try and impress the seeding committee to get that coveted spot.

Here is how I look at it. The 5-1-2 basically provides a guaranteed slot for each P5 champ and one guaranteed slot to the G5. In essence, its simply treating the ENTIRE G5 as a single big 65 team power conference. This mirrors the CFP money split---which also gives the entire G5 a split thats about the same as one P5 conference. The G5 doesnt have a contract bowl---but again, the ENTIRE G5 basically is treated as a single P5 conference with a floating contract bowl slot (kinda like the Big East). So, treating the entire G5 as a single giant 65 team P5 kinda makes sense for an 8 team playoff.

I think its going to be a very rare occurrence when the top team that emerges from that 65 team G5 scrum is not a pretty competitive team.

(08-02-2019 07:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 06:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 06:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 03:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  If you want to argue a 5-1-2, then you have to include Independents with the G5.

The playoff slot reserved for them should be a "non-P5" slot. Independents other than Notre Dame should be eligible to be chosen, along with any team in an G5 conference.

Does anyone seriously think a system will be adopted in which Notre Dame can compete for only two playoff spots, but UAB and San Jose State can compete for three?

That's what a 5-1-2 amounts to, folks.

Are you seriously suggesting Notre Dame would either

A) make the playoff less than UAB

or

B) Be left out of the playoff by the Selection Committee when they deserved to be in

However-----even if you believe both points are likely (which they are not)---Notre Dame can alleviate that issue by joining any conference it wishes. Nobody would tell them no.

You cannot continue to call a playoff a "playoff" when everyone acknowledges nearly half of the field has no chance at the playoff even if they win every game they play. The next playoff will have to do a better job of providing a legitimate pathway for every team to enter the playoff. I think the best model is the NCAA tournament where there are two pathways. With one pathway, any team can "win" their way into the playoff. This rewards play on the field and winning key games and key moments. It recognizes that there are differences in conferences and schedules and it is virtually impossible to accurately compare teams from the two groups playing different competition. It solves it by creating a path of accomplishment. Basically---either win a power conference---or be the best champ of the non-power conferences.

The other pathway is the Selection Committee's two wildcard slots--which offer a second chance for 2 deserving teams that excelled against a high quality schedule---but fell short of winning their conference (or have no conference to win). Im not saying its perfect or that it addresses every issue---but it addresses the vast majority of the issues and provides a structure that the vast majority of fans would view as reasonable and acceptable.

If your going to have a selection committee drive the whole thing---then we may as well just go back to the the poll driven mythical championship. If your just going to ignore half of college football, all the conference championships, and key head to head games----then why place so much importance on a few post season head-to-head games played in December and January just because we have slapped a CFP label on them?

First, very poor deflection about Notre Dame. I never implied that I think Notre Dame would make the playoffs in any 8-team system less than UAB would. I was talking about the *structure* of the system.

And 5-1-2 would, structurally, give UAB three paths to the playoffs and Notre Dame only two. That is IMO a non-starter, nobody will agree to that. Nobody in power wants that.

Second, IMO you are wrong about what most regard as the key flaw of the current 4-team playoff. It is emphatically NOT that "half the teams have no chance of being selected even if they win every game they play". Nobody cares if a team wins 12 games against soft opponents and doesn't make the playoffs, nor should they, as they didn't deserve to. The major complaint is P5 champs being left out, like Ohio State last year. I'm not saying the latter *should* be the major complaint, IMO it shouldn't, but it is. IMO you are fooling yourself if you think the powers that be or the public cares about what happens to the C-USA champion, they don't, to them it is obvious they aren't the best team in the country, nor is the AAC champ, the SB champ, etc.

Third, IMO the NCAA tournament is a poor analogy for a 5-1-2 playoff, because the key distinguishing factor of the NCAA tournament is that, among the power conferences, a LOT more power teams get in as at-large teams than as conference champions. If the ACC or B1G gets 6 or 7 or 8 teams in the tournament, which they often do, then only one of those teams is the conference champ and the other six are at-large teams. In contrast, in 5-1-2, or 5-3, conference champs would make up the great majority of playoff teams. The NCAA tournament moved away from that model 45 years ago.

Fourth, the emphasis on conference champs in college football is nonsensical. Simple examples make that clear - imagine if last year Pitt, with 5 losses, had beaten Clemson in the ACC title game. By your system, and by 5-3, Pitt would be in the playoffs. That would be an absurd outcome. It would mean that 5 losses did not matter because they followed the rules that made them conference champs. Talk about ignoring what happened on the field! And no, you can't say "well Clemson would have got in as an at-large anyway", because it's not just about Clemson, it's about all the other 1 or 2 loss or 3 loss teams in other conferences as well. With just two at-large, many of them would be booted out because of Pitt.

The systems conferences used to pick their champs is too arbitrary and invalid to rely on it as a means to picking playoff teams. Conferences manipulate their champ-selection procedures for all sorts of reasons unrelated to actually picking the best team - we're seeing that now with proposals to allow CCGs with 11 teams or 10 teams or with unbalanced schedules or no divisions or unbalanced divisions, etc. - and those proposals have to do with money, not validity.

A Selection Committee would never make the mistake of putting Pitt in the playoffs, it is more reliable and valid than a conference champs process for doing so. Conference champ procedures arbitrarily elevate some games above others - you can lose all your OOC games and still make the playoffs, a silly idea. In contrast, in the NFL, you can never have a situation where 8-8 Washington is the Division champ over 12-4 Philly. All the games count.

So really, if your concern is picking a valid champ where things are decided on the field, you should be very much against giving any conference champs an automatic bid, P5 or G5.

(08-02-2019 10:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I haven’t looked into the history but I venture to say that the G5 ought to be able to muster a champ between the 5 leagues that has 10+ wins and should still look good on paper and likely on the field as well. in a historical look I did back to 2004, there are a lot of years where the G5 in 5-1-2 would be a 7 seed or higher.

The fact is that the casual viewer likes a David vs Goliath story so pitting a G5 vs the top seed overall is good for business (and good for avoiding an anti-trust suit).

The top G5 team has typically been ranked outside the top 10. Only last year, UCF at #8, have they been ranked in the top 10. So had the top champ been in the playoffs the last 5 years, they would typically be leap-frogging a LOT of power teams that "looked better on paper". Nobody wants that.

Also, IMO a "top G5" slot combined with auto-bids for P conferences increases anti-trust issues. What anti-trust issues do we have now, five years in to the CFP? Zero, because formally, every conference is the same. The Sun Belt champ doesn't automatically get in to the playoffs, but neither does the B1G champ - just ask them, LOL.

But if the B1G champ does automatically get in, as under 5-3 or 5-1-2, while the SB champ doesn't, then you have formal differentiation, and great grounds for anti-trust.

You should realize that the 5-1-2 model is basically an AAC model. The AAC stands to greatly benefit from it, the rest of the G5 not nearly as much.

(08-02-2019 11:23 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  WTF happens to people when they get to Chapel Hill?

Maybe Mack can explain to us howfootball doesn't cause concussions and reducing violence in football will destroy America.

Fedora was like that before he got to Chapel Hill.

G5 auto-bid not happening. Address my earlier post if you disagree. Too many holes.

App State is a great game, doesn’t mean the players care. I think Mack would know what his players think?

Why would ESPN want separate playoffs for the P and G schools?
Eventually playoff football will replace many of the minor bowls, by dividing the schools, it creates more playoff game possibilities to be broadcast.
This is no different than the extra rounds of playoffs that have been inserted into pro football, baseball and basketball.

(08-02-2019 10:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  In my opinion the “ideal” playoff is done like this.

The ten conference champions are rated 1-10.
The teams rated 1-4 get a first round bye and home field. Teams rated 5-8 get home field in the first round. We then add in the top two non-champion teams they and the two remaining conference champs are rated. The top team gets the 9 seed and bottom team the 12 seed.

Neutral sites for the semi finals and championship.

The powers that be are more comfortable with equality of opportunity than what some think.

What they get skittish over is governance (control of the future direction of the sport) and revenue (translates into competitiveness long term).

They could give all 10 conferences a spot in the playoff yet keep the G5 at a reduced money split like they are now potentially.

(08-03-2019 07:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 07:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 06:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 06:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 03:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  If you want to argue a 5-1-2, then you have to include Independents with the G5.

The playoff slot reserved for them should be a "non-P5" slot. Independents other than Notre Dame should be eligible to be chosen, along with any team in an G5 conference.

Does anyone seriously think a system will be adopted in which Notre Dame can compete for only two playoff spots, but UAB and San Jose State can compete for three?

That's what a 5-1-2 amounts to, folks.

Are you seriously suggesting Notre Dame would either

A) make the playoff less than UAB

or

B) Be left out of the playoff by the Selection Committee when they deserved to be in

However-----even if you believe both points are likely (which they are not)---Notre Dame can alleviate that issue by joining any conference it wishes. Nobody would tell them no.

You cannot continue to call a playoff a "playoff" when everyone acknowledges nearly half of the field has no chance at the playoff even if they win every game they play. The next playoff will have to do a better job of providing a legitimate pathway for every team to enter the playoff. I think the best model is the NCAA tournament where there are two pathways. With one pathway, any team can "win" their way into the playoff. This rewards play on the field and winning key games and key moments. It recognizes that there are differences in conferences and schedules and it is virtually impossible to accurately compare teams from the two groups playing different competition. It solves it by creating a path of accomplishment. Basically---either win a power conference---or be the best champ of the non-power conferences.

The other pathway is the Selection Committee's two wildcard slots--which offer a second chance for 2 deserving teams that excelled against a high quality schedule---but fell short of winning their conference (or have no conference to win). Im not saying its perfect or that it addresses every issue---but it addresses the vast majority of the issues and provides a structure that the vast majority of fans would view as reasonable and acceptable.

If your going to have a selection committee drive the whole thing---then we may as well just go back to the the poll driven mythical championship. If your just going to ignore half of college football, all the conference championships, and key head to head games----then why place so much importance on a few post season head-to-head games played in December and January just because we have slapped a CFP label on them?

First, very poor deflection about Notre Dame. I never implied that I think Notre Dame would make the playoffs in any 8-team system less than UAB would. I was talking about the *structure* of the system.

And 5-1-2 would, structurally, give UAB three paths to the playoffs and Notre Dame only two. That is IMO a non-starter, nobody will agree to that. Nobody in power wants that.

Second, IMO you are wrong about what most regard as the key flaw of the current 4-team playoff. It is emphatically NOT that "half the teams have no chance of being selected even if they win every game they play". Nobody cares if a team wins 12 games against soft opponents and doesn't make the playoffs, nor should they, as they didn't deserve to. The major complaint is P5 champs being left out, like Ohio State last year. I'm not saying the latter *should* be the major complaint, IMO it shouldn't, but it is. IMO you are fooling yourself if you think the powers that be or the public cares about what happens to the C-USA champion, they don't, to them it is obvious they aren't the best team in the country, nor is the AAC champ, the SB champ, etc.

Third, IMO the NCAA tournament is a poor analogy for a 5-1-2 playoff, because the key distinguishing factor of the NCAA tournament is that, among the power conferences, a LOT more power teams get in as at-large teams than as conference champions. If the ACC or B1G gets 6 or 7 or 8 teams in the tournament, which they often do, then only one of those teams is the conference champ and the other six are at-large teams. In contrast, in 5-1-2, or 5-3, conference champs would make up the great majority of playoff teams. The NCAA tournament moved away from that model 45 years ago.

Fourth, the emphasis on conference champs in college football is nonsensical. Simple examples make that clear - imagine if last year Pitt, with 5 losses, had beaten Clemson in the ACC title game. By your system, and by 5-3, Pitt would be in the playoffs. That would be an absurd outcome. It would mean that 5 losses did not matter because they followed the rules that made them conference champs. Talk about ignoring what happened on the field! And no, you can't say "well Clemson would have got in as an at-large anyway", because it's not just about Clemson, it's about all the other 1 or 2 loss or 3 loss teams in other conferences as well. With just two at-large, many of them would be booted out because of Pitt.

The systems conferences used to pick their champs is too arbitrary and invalid to rely on it as a means to picking playoff teams. Conferences manipulate their champ-selection procedures for all sorts of reasons unrelated to actually picking the best team - we're seeing that now with proposals to allow CCGs with 11 teams or 10 teams or with unbalanced schedules or no divisions or unbalanced divisions, etc. - and those proposals have to do with money, not validity.

A Selection Committee would never make the mistake of putting Pitt in the playoffs, it is more reliable and valid than a conference champs process for doing so. Conference champ procedures arbitrarily elevate some games above others - you can lose all your OOC games and still make the playoffs, a silly idea. In contrast, in the NFL, you can never have a situation where 8-8 Washington is the Division champ over 12-4 Philly. All the games count.

So really, if your concern is picking a valid champ where things are decided on the field, you should be very much against giving any conference champs an automatic bid, P5 or G5.

Your entire post basically boils down to fear that something might happen on the field that isn’t in line with the Committee rankings. Shrug—yeah—a team might not win the championship if they lose. That’s pretty much how championships work. How they don’t work is you win every game and still can’t win a championship. That’s not the case anywhere and you know it.

(08-03-2019 01:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 10:29 PM)Noodles Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 01:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 01:22 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The 5-1 proposal is Mack Brown's alone. There are too many logistical problems. The Playoff Bowls have to be after Christmas. The reason has to do with why the Bowls exist, for tourism, and people are not likely to go to Bowls before Christmas and stay any length of time (this is why the lesser G5 Bowls are before Christmas, the P5 after).

The 5 is a given. CCGs are losing value and interest rapidly. The B12 had to settle for $10M for the three games CBS bailed out on, whereas the prior ones were for $20M. That is a warning shot to all the P5 that their CCGs need to matter or else they are glorified exhibitions; tOSU even went to the playoff once as the B1G rep without going to the CCG! Playing for an automatic playoff berth would make all 5 CCGs must watch TV, especially with ending divisions and sending the best two. That means more value and money for all the P5 they don't have to share.

There is also the political side. To get the SEC to agree, the playoffs needs to have 3 at-large so the SEC can pretty much guarantee a 2nd school, ditto B1G most years.

The 5-1-2 will be pushed for hard by the American, possibly with some support from the MWC. But I don't think it'll happen, to rather if it does, it will require the G5 school be in the top 10. Only last year's UCF team managed that. But it's hard to see the P5 agreeing to hand over a slot of Notre Dame, Michigan, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Wisconsin, Florida State or UCLA to a G5 school. The P5 do not need any G5 votes to pass this, so 5-3 will win the day. But I can see a top 10 ranking rule that might have benefited UCF.

The access will still be there, and the lowest of the 11 P5 ranked schools will still wind up against the top G5 in the bogey prize game. It is more valuable than a G5 playoff. The 9th and 10th get the miss congeniality consolation bowl as usual. And there will still be a 7th Bowl grabbing up the 12th and 13th or 14th best P5 which is vying to get in the NY6.

The G5 playoff may happen. But I think it'll be for 2nd to 5th conference champions. I can't see the American signing on, and I can't see this G5 CG paying out more than the NY6 access Bowl. Nobody will want to host the G5 Championship game, although the first round playoffs would see a gaggle of pre-Christmas Bowls interested.

That was always the dumbest part of the CFP. The Selection Committee literally told us on multiple occasions that what happened on the field simply didnt matter---OUR OPINION is more important. Thats just a terrible way to run a playoff. If what happens on the field doesnt matter---why have a playoff at all? We already had a system where we crowned our national champion based completely on opinion. A playoff that relies completly on opinion to determine its participants isnt really much different that the mythical poll driven national championships of the past. For a playoff to be real---the participants should be determined as a direct result of the action on the field as much as possible.

So, you're now saying "on the field" should matter.
Because, you know, it was MARKETS when you refused to invite Southern Miss, who dominated all you AAC boys "on the field".
Cake?

lol...Or, maybe the lesson is to not go 0-12 "on the field" next time realignment heats up. FWIW---I always found it surprising that Tulane got the nod over S Miss in 2012. That move is one of the reasons I keep telling people on this board that academics are often way under weighted by many posters when it comes to realignment. I think market was also a factor---but I actually think the presidents just really liked the idea of associating with such a highly rated academic institution.

I know the University presidents claim to prefer high academic ratings, so they say. However, I guarantee you that If So. Miss. would have been in a position to bring in a huge amount of money,they would have been in over Tulane. They only play the academic card if the bucks are not coming, Money is the main driver in all this stuff,


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think there are many issues with guaranteeing a spot in a hypothetical eight-team playoff to a representative of the G5. What would happen if the highest ranked G5 team was a program like 2010 UConn - 8-4 record, not ranked, and ended up getting smoked by a big program like Oklahoma? That would ruin the basis of an expanded playoff, which would be to put in the eight best teams. Additionally, if the G5 received a guaranteed spot in a playoff, why wouldn't a BYU choose to seek out a membership with the Sun Belt (as an example), look to run the tables as a G5 team, but position itself to annually be the G5 rep each year?

At the end of the day, for an eight-team playoff, it should be five guaranteed spots to the P5 CCG winners, along with three wild card spots and no guaranteed G5 spots. The G5 is not entitled nor should be guaranteed a spot in the playoff, unless there is an undefeated team that finishes in the top-10 (and even then, it needs to be a team that is head and shoulders above top-10 teams that probably has one, or two, losses).

(08-03-2019 08:57 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 10:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  In my opinion the “ideal” playoff is done like this.

The ten conference champions are rated 1-10.
The teams rated 1-4 get a first round bye and home field. Teams rated 5-8 get home field in the first round. We then add in the top two non-champion teams they and the two remaining conference champs are rated. The top team gets the 9 seed and bottom team the 12 seed.

Neutral sites for the semi finals and championship.

The powers that be are more comfortable with equality of opportunity than what some think.

What they get skittish over is governance (control of the future direction of the sport) and revenue (translates into competitiveness long term).

They could give all 10 conferences a spot in the playoff yet keep the G5 at a reduced money split like they are now potentially.

I think you are a bit naive here. E.g., before 1975, the NCAA tournament used to be very egalitarian - basically, all the conference champs got in, and only the conference champs. So the Sun Belt (or its equivalent at the time) was on the same footing as the Big 10.

In 1975 they changed that, and now of course the Big 10 gets about 7 teams in each year and the Sun Belt gets 1.

So IMO, there's no way that the P5 is going to give anything like the same ratio of playoff bids to the G5 as P5. Not only would they naturally want the great bulk of them for themselves, but they would fear the leveling effect - if recruits knew that joining a Sun Belt team gave them the same playoff chance as a Big 10 team, more might go to Sun Belt schools, and as Sun Belt schools made playoff appearances, their profiles would rise, possibly leveling out media interest among the conferences as well, etc.

P5 don't want any of that, nor should they.

(08-03-2019 11:00 AM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(08-03-2019 01:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 10:29 PM)Noodles Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 01:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 01:22 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The 5-1 proposal is Mack Brown's alone. There are too many logistical problems. The Playoff Bowls have to be after Christmas. The reason has to do with why the Bowls exist, for tourism, and people are not likely to go to Bowls before Christmas and stay any length of time (this is why the lesser G5 Bowls are before Christmas, the P5 after).

The 5 is a given. CCGs are losing value and interest rapidly. The B12 had to settle for $10M for the three games CBS bailed out on, whereas the prior ones were for $20M. That is a warning shot to all the P5 that their CCGs need to matter or else they are glorified exhibitions; tOSU even went to the playoff once as the B1G rep without going to the CCG! Playing for an automatic playoff berth would make all 5 CCGs must watch TV, especially with ending divisions and sending the best two. That means more value and money for all the P5 they don't have to share.

There is also the political side. To get the SEC to agree, the playoffs needs to have 3 at-large so the SEC can pretty much guarantee a 2nd school, ditto B1G most years.

The 5-1-2 will be pushed for hard by the American, possibly with some support from the MWC. But I don't think it'll happen, to rather if it does, it will require the G5 school be in the top 10. Only last year's UCF team managed that. But it's hard to see the P5 agreeing to hand over a slot of Notre Dame, Michigan, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Wisconsin, Florida State or UCLA to a G5 school. The P5 do not need any G5 votes to pass this, so 5-3 will win the day. But I can see a top 10 ranking rule that might have benefited UCF.

The access will still be there, and the lowest of the 11 P5 ranked schools will still wind up against the top G5 in the bogey prize game. It is more valuable than a G5 playoff. The 9th and 10th get the miss congeniality consolation bowl as usual. And there will still be a 7th Bowl grabbing up the 12th and 13th or 14th best P5 which is vying to get in the NY6.

The G5 playoff may happen. But I think it'll be for 2nd to 5th conference champions. I can't see the American signing on, and I can't see this G5 CG paying out more than the NY6 access Bowl. Nobody will want to host the G5 Championship game, although the first round playoffs would see a gaggle of pre-Christmas Bowls interested.

That was always the dumbest part of the CFP. The Selection Committee literally told us on multiple occasions that what happened on the field simply didnt matter---OUR OPINION is more important. Thats just a terrible way to run a playoff. If what happens on the field doesnt matter---why have a playoff at all? We already had a system where we crowned our national champion based completely on opinion. A playoff that relies completly on opinion to determine its participants isnt really much different that the mythical poll driven national championships of the past. For a playoff to be real---the participants should be determined as a direct result of the action on the field as much as possible.

So, you're now saying "on the field" should matter.
Because, you know, it was MARKETS when you refused to invite Southern Miss, who dominated all you AAC boys "on the field".
Cake?

lol...Or, maybe the lesson is to not go 0-12 "on the field" next time realignment heats up. FWIW---I always found it surprising that Tulane got the nod over S Miss in 2012. That move is one of the reasons I keep telling people on this board that academics are often way under weighted by many posters when it comes to realignment. I think market was also a factor---but I actually think the presidents just really liked the idea of associating with such a highly rated academic institution.

I know the University presidents claim to prefer high academic ratings, so they say. However, I guarantee you that If So. Miss. would have been in a position to bring in a huge amount of money,they would have been in over Tulane. They only play the academic card if the bucks are not coming, Money is the main driver in all this stuff,


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yup. Case and point---Boise was in before Tulane.

(08-03-2019 11:31 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I think there are many issues with guaranteeing a spot in a hypothetical eight-team playoff to a representative of the G5. What would happen if the highest ranked G5 team was a program like 2010 UConn - 8-4 record, not ranked, and ended up getting smoked by a big program like Oklahoma? That would ruin the basis of an expanded playoff, which would be to put in the eight best teams. Additionally, if the G5 received a guaranteed spot in a playoff, why wouldn't a BYU choose to seek out a membership with the Sun Belt (as an example), look to run the tables as a G5 team, but position itself to annually be the G5 rep each year?

Plus, there's a possible conflict between "best G5 champ" and "best team". E.g., what if two years ago, UCF had lost by a smidge to a 4-loss team in the AAC title game?

If the system was "best G5 team", they would still surely have been the highest ranked G5 team even after that loss, and deservedly so. But if they got in the playoffs via their ranking, then it would not have been "decided on the field" or whatever term is used.

In contrast, if it was "best G5 champ", then UCF would have been out, and some other G5 that won their conference would get in. That team would be taking a playoff spot even though they might be unranked!

I know, that same issue arises with the guaranteed NY6 bowl bid, but that's OK because nothing is at stake. But these are playoffs we are talking about.

Just too much stupidity in the idea, IMO.

(08-03-2019 11:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-03-2019 08:57 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 10:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  In my opinion the “ideal” playoff is done like this.

The ten conference champions are rated 1-10.
The teams rated 1-4 get a first round bye and home field. Teams rated 5-8 get home field in the first round. We then add in the top two non-champion teams they and the two remaining conference champs are rated. The top team gets the 9 seed and bottom team the 12 seed.

Neutral sites for the semi finals and championship.

The powers that be are more comfortable with equality of opportunity than what some think.

What they get skittish over is governance (control of the future direction of the sport) and revenue (translates into competitiveness long term).

They could give all 10 conferences a spot in the playoff yet keep the G5 at a reduced money split like they are now potentially.

I think you are a bit naive here. E.g., before 1975, the NCAA tournament used to be very egalitarian - basically, all the conference champs got in, and only the conference champs. So the Sun Belt (or its equivalent at the time) was on the same footing as the Big 10.

In 1975 they changed that, and now of course the Big 10 gets about 7 teams in each year and the Sun Belt gets 1.

So IMO, there's no way that the P5 is going to give anything like the same ratio of playoff bids to the G5 as P5. Not only would they naturally want the great bulk of them for themselves, but they would fear the leveling effect - if recruits knew that joining a Sun Belt team gave them the same playoff chance as a Big 10 team, more might go to Sun Belt schools, and as Sun Belt schools made playoff appearances, their profiles would rise, possibly leveling out media interest among the conferences as well, etc.

P5 don't want any of that, nor should they.

Right---but even my preferred 5-1-2 effectively gives the P5 7 slots to the G5's one slot. Thats WAAAAAAAAAY more heavily slanted in the the P5 direction than the NCAA tourney. Thus, its not like the 5-1-2 is anything close to the equality of the NCAA tournament where something approaching 40-50% of the bids end up in non-P5 hands. The only purpose of the guaranteed G5 bid is to create an actual legitimate path to the playoff for the G5 where none exists currently. As for indys, they have to finish in the top 4 to make the playoff in the todays playoff---under the 5-1-2, finishing in the top 6 or 7 will almost certainly get you in---so there is some expansion of indy opportunity as well.

(08-03-2019 11:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-03-2019 11:31 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I think there are many issues with guaranteeing a spot in a hypothetical eight-team playoff to a representative of the G5. What would happen if the highest ranked G5 team was a program like 2010 UConn - 8-4 record, not ranked, and ended up getting smoked by a big program like Oklahoma? That would ruin the basis of an expanded playoff, which would be to put in the eight best teams. Additionally, if the G5 received a guaranteed spot in a playoff, why wouldn't a BYU choose to seek out a membership with the Sun Belt (as an example), look to run the tables as a G5 team, but position itself to annually be the G5 rep each year?

Plus, there's a possible conflict between "best G5 champ" and "best team". E.g., what if two years ago, UCF had lost by a smidge to a 4-loss team in the AAC title game?

If the system was "best G5 team", they would still surely have been the highest ranked G5 team even after that loss, and deservedly so. But if they got in the playoffs via their ranking, then it would not have been "decided on the field" or whatever term is used.

In contrast, if it was "best G5 champ", then UCF would have been out, and some other G5 that won their conference would get in. That team would be taking a playoff spot even though they might be unranked!

I know, that same issue arises with the guaranteed NY6 bowl bid, but that's OK because nothing is at stake. But these are playoffs we are talking about.

Just too much stupidity in the idea, IMO.

I think there is some validity here---but games mean something. If you lose when you need to win---then your out---otherwise, whats the point of playing the games?