5-1-2 with the NY6 sites rotating as quarter and semi final sites (in years a bowl is a semi final site they’d still host a bowl with 2 of the top 4 teams left out of the playoffs) serves to meet everyone’s needs.

All 5 P5 champs? Check
A guaranteed slot for the G5? Check
A path for at large teams to qualify? Check
Big NY6 bowls for top 10 teams who didn’t make the field? Check
Preservation of the bowls? Check

(08-29-2019 02:41 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  

(08-29-2019 02:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-29-2019 12:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The nuance is that the 6th conference winner is no longer pegged to one conference, but could be from any one of five G5 leagues.

A bigger issue is that, instead of being one of college football's historic "haves", it would be one of CFB's historic "have-nots" (1). You're talking about the 1998-2006 BCS setup (4 bowls, not 4-plus-1), then the football Big East is Miami, BC, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia, Rutgers and Temple. With the exception of Temple, all of those schools are in P5 leagues now.

(1) Yes, yes, we hear you Houston and SMU of the late Southwest Conference, and Rice and Tulane for that matter, and Cincinnati and South Florida who had moments in the BCS-AQ-Conference sun.

(That said, I'm in favor of 5-1-2, I think 5-1-2 is the next iteration. I prefer a BCS-style formula to the committee, but that will be determined by whether there's a big enough controversy in the last few years of this cycle to tarnish the committee approach)

So the have nots should not be allowed to go to the playoff? Even if they are the best team?

Relax. I'm just pointing out that 5-1-2 would be a transfer of power and money from the haves to the have-nots compared to the BCS. But the Access Bowl is already there as a precedent for it.

(08-29-2019 06:13 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  5-1-2 with the NY6 sites rotating as quarter and semi final sites (in years a bowl is a semi final site they’d still host a bowl with 2 of the top 4 teams left out of the playoffs) serves to meet everyone’s needs.

All 5 P5 champs? Check
A guaranteed slot for the G5? Check
A path for at large teams to qualify? Check
Big NY6 bowls for top 10 teams who didn’t make the field? Check
Preservation of the bowls? Check

Another need it meets is the preservation of the regular season and the importance of conferences. The talk becomes less of "how will this win/loss impact the CFP committee's view?" and more about conference standings.

Personally I'm in favor of either a 6-2 or 5-3 system. Top 5 or 6 conferences champs/representatives and 2 or 3 at large bids. You can't remove all subjectivity from rankings, but it's a lot easier to select 5 or 6 teams from a field of 12 than it is to select 4 teams from a field of 130.

And no those 5 or 6 teams may not be the "most deserving", but barring an NFL-like central authority on scheduling... you can only beat the teams that you have mutually agreed to play.

(08-29-2019 12:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-29-2019 09:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d just like to point out that the major conferences once sat down and agreed to send 6 conference champs and 2 at large teams to the aport’s biggest bowl games and they shared a crap ton of money as a result.

5-1-2 is the same set up; the only difference is that the 6th autobid goes to the champ of 1 of 5 conferences rather than a dedicated spot for the defunct Big East.

It worked then and it can work again. Sure there were years when a league, usually the ACC, sent a crappy team but it was part of preserving the peace.

You're kidding right? The BCS and CFP guarantee nobody a spot in the playoffs. They only guaranteed each AQ/P5 conference a spot in a Major/NY6 bowl. The only difference is that under the CFP, the G5 is guaranteed a spot in a NY6 bowl, whereas under the BCS a spot was assured only if the G5 team met certain rankings criteria.

A 5-1-2 playoff system would be a radical departure from both the CFP and BCS.

The original BCS granted access to 6 conference champs and 2 at large teams to college football’s biggest stage and highest dollar event series. This does the same thing but instead of only 2 teams being in the running for a title all 8 are.

The nuance is that the 6th conference winner is no longer pegged to one conference, but could be from any one of five G5 leagues.

The other real difference is that the winners have somewhere to advance to. The contest is different but that participants are roughly the same.

If you don’t like an expanded playoff then stop commenting on threads about them. Start a thread devoted to your commitment to however you think it should be.

I don't object to an 8-team playoff, and didn't say I did here, but I do not like the 5-1-2 option.

So if someone makes a thread pimping 5-1-2, then yes, I will comment on it. Especially when it makes wrong-headed comparisons with the BCS and CFP.

The eight-team playoff that is most consistent with the BCS and CFP would be a straight 8 system, where P5 champs and the top G5 team are guaranteed spots in NY6 bowls, but nobody is guaranteed a spot in the playoffs.

(08-29-2019 11:21 PM)McKinney Wrote:  Another need it meets is the preservation of the regular season and the importance of conferences. The talk becomes less of "how will this win/loss impact the CFP committee's view?" and more about conference standings.

I'm not sure conferences need 5-1-2 to remain important. Conferences have been important for 100 years, and yet never has there been a system that guaranteed any conference champion a spot in a playoff. Conferences have gotten along fine without that.

In any event, I don't think you need to have automatic qualification for conference champs for conferences to remain important. For example, in the current CFP, where by definition a P5 champ has to be left out of the playoffs every year, it has nevertheless been the case that 17 of the 20 teams that have made the playoffs have been P5 champs.

Even under the 4-team CFP, being a P5 champ has been a very strong predictor of making the playoffs. If you have won a P5 conference the past 5 years, you have had a 68% chance to make the playoffs, even though mathematically, at least 20% of all P5 champs must miss the playoffs every year and with no auto-bids for the other four.

In contrast, as there are 64 teams in the P5, and only 2 non-champs have made the CFP playoffs, that means that if you are a P5 team and did not win your conference these past 5 years, your chance to make the playoffs has been less than 1%.

68% compared to less than 1% is a pretty big spread, so I would say that under the CFP winning a P5 conference championship has been extremely important.

And in an 8-team playoff that would surely strengthen even more even without auto-bids.

(08-30-2019 05:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-29-2019 12:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-29-2019 09:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d just like to point out that the major conferences once sat down and agreed to send 6 conference champs and 2 at large teams to the aport’s biggest bowl games and they shared a crap ton of money as a result.

5-1-2 is the same set up; the only difference is that the 6th autobid goes to the champ of 1 of 5 conferences rather than a dedicated spot for the defunct Big East.

It worked then and it can work again. Sure there were years when a league, usually the ACC, sent a crappy team but it was part of preserving the peace.

You're kidding right? The BCS and CFP guarantee nobody a spot in the playoffs. They only guaranteed each AQ/P5 conference a spot in a Major/NY6 bowl. The only difference is that under the CFP, the G5 is guaranteed a spot in a NY6 bowl, whereas under the BCS a spot was assured only if the G5 team met certain rankings criteria.

A 5-1-2 playoff system would be a radical departure from both the CFP and BCS.

The original BCS granted access to 6 conference champs and 2 at large teams to college football’s biggest stage and highest dollar event series. This does the same thing but instead of only 2 teams being in the running for a title all 8 are.

The nuance is that the 6th conference winner is no longer pegged to one conference, but could be from any one of five G5 leagues.

The other real difference is that the winners have somewhere to advance to. The contest is different but that participants are roughly the same.

If you don’t like an expanded playoff then stop commenting on threads about them. Start a thread devoted to your commitment to however you think it should be.

I don't object to an 8-team playoff, and didn't say I did here, but I do not like the 5-1-2 option.

So if someone makes a thread pimping 5-1-2, then yes, I will comment on it. Especially when it makes wrong-headed comparisons with the BCS and CFP.

The eight-team playoff that is most consistent with the BCS and CFP would be a straight 8 system, where P5 champs and the top G5 team are guaranteed spots in NY6 bowls, but nobody is guaranteed a spot in the playoffs.

The BCS gave autobids to 6 conferences—Straight 8 gives ZERO autobids. Tell me again exactly how those are the same?

My proposal grants playoff auto bids to 6 teams. My playoff uses 4 of the 6 NY6 bowls (on a rotating basis) with the 4 highest ranked non-playoff teams get guaranteed spots in the 2 non-playoff NY6 bowls. (So if you’re ranked 8th and a conference champ is ranked lower they still get a prestigious, high dollar bowl).

(08-30-2019 08:19 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 05:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-29-2019 12:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-29-2019 09:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d just like to point out that the major conferences once sat down and agreed to send 6 conference champs and 2 at large teams to the aport’s biggest bowl games and they shared a crap ton of money as a result.

5-1-2 is the same set up; the only difference is that the 6th autobid goes to the champ of 1 of 5 conferences rather than a dedicated spot for the defunct Big East.

It worked then and it can work again. Sure there were years when a league, usually the ACC, sent a crappy team but it was part of preserving the peace.

You're kidding right? The BCS and CFP guarantee nobody a spot in the playoffs. They only guaranteed each AQ/P5 conference a spot in a Major/NY6 bowl. The only difference is that under the CFP, the G5 is guaranteed a spot in a NY6 bowl, whereas under the BCS a spot was assured only if the G5 team met certain rankings criteria.

A 5-1-2 playoff system would be a radical departure from both the CFP and BCS.

The original BCS granted access to 6 conference champs and 2 at large teams to college football’s biggest stage and highest dollar event series. This does the same thing but instead of only 2 teams being in the running for a title all 8 are.

The nuance is that the 6th conference winner is no longer pegged to one conference, but could be from any one of five G5 leagues.

The other real difference is that the winners have somewhere to advance to. The contest is different but that participants are roughly the same.

If you don’t like an expanded playoff then stop commenting on threads about them. Start a thread devoted to your commitment to however you think it should be.

I don't object to an 8-team playoff, and didn't say I did here, but I do not like the 5-1-2 option.

So if someone makes a thread pimping 5-1-2, then yes, I will comment on it. Especially when it makes wrong-headed comparisons with the BCS and CFP.

The eight-team playoff that is most consistent with the BCS and CFP would be a straight 8 system, where P5 champs and the top G5 team are guaranteed spots in NY6 bowls, but nobody is guaranteed a spot in the playoffs.

The BCS gave autobids to 6 conferences—Straight 8 gives ZERO autobids. Tell me again exactly how those are the same?

My proposal grants playoff auto bids to 6 teams. My playoff uses 4 of the 6 NY6 bowls (on a rotating basis) with the 4 highest ranked non-playoff teams get guaranteed spots in the 2 non-playoff NY6 bowls. (So if you’re ranked 8th and a conference champ is ranked lower they still get a prestigious, high dollar bowl).

Straight 8 could be designed to give autobids to major bowls that are not a part of the playoffs to P5 champs and the highest rated G5 that do not make the playoffs. We might have to create another NY - calibre to do that, but that can easily be done.

Not that this is likely to be necessary - if straight 8 had been used the past 5 years, 24 out 25 P5 champs would have made the playoffs. But on the off-chance someone misses out, we can find them a nice landing spot in a big bowl.

If you want Conference Championship Games to still have meaning, then P5 champs (and highest ranked G5 champ) should be criteria for an auto-bid to the 5-1-2 playoff. If someone gets upset, well guess what, they still have a chance to get in (possibly) as an at-large. To me that is equitable, and I am of the notion if you can't win your conference then you aren't guaranteed anything. How many times in the CFP era has someone been knocked out of the CFP discussion for losing their CCG (not many, if any). The same would apply under an 8-team 5-1-2 model. This is really the only system that everyone would be agreeable to and everyone would have a true path to a championship.

Regarding bowl games you'd see little change... the NY6 would still be 6 bowls, with 2 of them each year hosting the Semi-Final on a rotation (like it is now). The only change would be a game 1-2 weeks before then at the higher ranked team's home stadium for the Opening round of 8 teams.