(04-08-2020 07:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 06:04 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I don’t think more than 4 is necessary.

I think what people really want is transparent, objective criteria for picking those 4 teams like a points system anyone can follow like:

2 pts Great Win: Top 10 opponent either On the Road/Neutral Site and by more than 10 points

1.5 pts Good Win: Top 25 opponent

1 pts Win: any win over a Top 100 team

.05 pts Win: any win over a non Top 100 team

-0 pts Great Loss: Top 10 opponent either on the road/neutral site or by less than 7 points

-0.5 pts Good Loss: any loss to Top 25 team

-1 pts: Loss any loss to a Top 100 team

-1.5 pts Bad Loss: any loss to a non Top 100 team

Rewards tough wins while not severely punishing risk taking losses and doesn’t let you feast on cupcakes and expect to play for a title

There is no perfect system. That's the problem. The best system is an objective one. One where its decided on the field. There are clear objective standards for a conference champion. With all 5 in, you don't have to argue whether a 1 loss TCU, 1 loss Stanford, 1 loss Clemson and 1 loss Ohio St. are better than a 2 loss Alabama.

Not all champions are created equal as not all conferences are created equal. There are plenty of years where the champ of a league is nowhere near one of the best 4 teams so Auto bids should be a complete non starter.

Besides in my system, if your league is any good, your champ gets an extra 2 point bonus

I think 8 is great.

(04-08-2020 04:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 11:37 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Half of the semi final games have basically been non competitive. Aside from some decent 2vs3 matchups, the games have been lopsided, and now we want 8 teams? A G5 would be shredded even if they somehow won a 1vs8 and get to the Semis. They don't have the depth to compete back to back to back. I don't see it passing any time soon. Maybe after 2026 or whenever the current contract expires. But it's bad for the sport to dilute the field and give conferences autobids. The P5 is punished more with the current model than the proposed one.

Let's see.
#1 seed-first round-won big 3 times, won close once, lost close once and lost big once. Won title once.
#2 seed-first round-won big 4 times, lost close twice. Won title 3 times.
#3 seed-hasn't won title.
#4 seed-won title 2 times.

So should we drop the #3 seed and add #5 to replace them?

All this shows is that #1 - #4 have collectively been pretty close. It doesn't say anything about #5 being able to win the title. I'd say the fact that teams that win tend to dominate mitigates strongly against that. Let's look at #5s:

LSU beat Oklahoma by 30 and Clemson by 17. Could the #5 team, Georgia, have done that? LSU beat Georgia by 27 a few weeks before, so ... unlikely.

In 2018, Clemson beat Notre Dame by 27 and Alabama by 27. Could #5 Georgia have done that? Alabama had just beat Georgia by 7 and Georgia lost the Sugar Bowl to #11 Texas, so probably not.

In 2017, Alabama beat Clemson by 18 and Georgia by 6 in OT. Could #5 Ohio State have done that? They lost to Oklahoma by 12 at home and by 30 to Iowa for crissakes. Not likely.

In 2016, Clemson beat Ohio State by 30 and Alabama at the buzzer. Could #5 Penn State have done that? They lost to #11 USC in the Rose Bowl.

In 2015, Alabama beat Michigan State by 30 and Clemson by 7. Could #5 Iowa have done that? Iowa lost the Rose Bowl to Stanford.

In 2014, Ohio State beat Alabama by 7 and Oregon by 30. Could #5 Baylor had done that? They lost the Cotton Bowl.

So in four of the six years of the CFP the #5 team hasn't even won their bowl game versus lesser teams.

Thus, it's fair to say that while the CFP has struggled to seed #1 - #4 correctly, they have almost certainly *included* in that top 4 the best team, the national champ. That suggests expansion of the playoffs isn't necessary.

(04-08-2020 09:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 04:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 11:37 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Half of the semi final games have basically been non competitive. Aside from some decent 2vs3 matchups, the games have been lopsided, and now we want 8 teams? A G5 would be shredded even if they somehow won a 1vs8 and get to the Semis. They don't have the depth to compete back to back to back. I don't see it passing any time soon. Maybe after 2026 or whenever the current contract expires. But it's bad for the sport to dilute the field and give conferences autobids. The P5 is punished more with the current model than the proposed one.

Let's see.
#1 seed-first round-won big 3 times, won close once, lost close once and lost big once. Won title once.
#2 seed-first round-won big 4 times, lost close twice. Won title 3 times.
#3 seed-hasn't won title.
#4 seed-won title 2 times.

So should we drop the #3 seed and add #5 to replace them?

All this shows is that #1 - #4 have collectively been pretty close. It doesn't say anything about #5 being able to win the title. I'd say the fact that teams that win tend to dominate mitigates strongly against that. Let's look at #5s:

LSU beat Oklahoma by 30 and Clemson by 17. Could the #5 team, Georgia, have done that? LSU beat Georgia by 27 a few weeks before, so ... unlikely.

In 2018, Clemson beat Notre Dame by 27 and Alabama by 27. Could #5 Georgia have done that? Alabama had just beat Georgia by 7 and Georgia lost the Sugar Bowl to #11 Texas, so probably not.

In 2017, Alabama beat Clemson by 18 and Georgia by 6 in OT. Could #5 Ohio State have done that? They lost to Oklahoma by 12 at home and by 30 to Iowa for crissakes. Not likely.

In 2016, Clemson beat Ohio State by 30 and Alabama at the buzzer. Could #5 Penn State have done that? They lost to #11 USC in the Rose Bowl.

In 2015, Alabama beat Michigan State by 30 and Clemson by 7. Could #5 Iowa have done that? Iowa lost the Rose Bowl to Stanford.

In 2014, Ohio State beat Alabama by 7 and Oregon by 30. Could #5 Baylor had done that? They lost the Cotton Bowl.

So in four of the six years of the CFP the #5 team hasn't even won their bowl game versus lesser teams.

Thus, it's fair to say that while the CFP has struggled to seed #1 - #4 correctly, they have almost certainly *included* in that top 4 the best team, the national champ. That suggests expansion of the playoffs isn't necessary.

Where you stand on the argument that UCF beat Auburn in the Peach Bowl because Auburn didn’t care to play the game, having just missed the playoff? It seems you’ve made that point before. Couldn’t that same argument apply to these teams as well, where #5 didn’t get “up” for the game? Could one assume like 2017 Auburn, these teams could be motivated if they were in the playoff?

(04-08-2020 11:21 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 09:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 04:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 11:37 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Half of the semi final games have basically been non competitive. Aside from some decent 2vs3 matchups, the games have been lopsided, and now we want 8 teams? A G5 would be shredded even if they somehow won a 1vs8 and get to the Semis. They don't have the depth to compete back to back to back. I don't see it passing any time soon. Maybe after 2026 or whenever the current contract expires. But it's bad for the sport to dilute the field and give conferences autobids. The P5 is punished more with the current model than the proposed one.

Let's see.
#1 seed-first round-won big 3 times, won close once, lost close once and lost big once. Won title once.
#2 seed-first round-won big 4 times, lost close twice. Won title 3 times.
#3 seed-hasn't won title.
#4 seed-won title 2 times.

So should we drop the #3 seed and add #5 to replace them?

All this shows is that #1 - #4 have collectively been pretty close. It doesn't say anything about #5 being able to win the title. I'd say the fact that teams that win tend to dominate mitigates strongly against that. Let's look at #5s:

LSU beat Oklahoma by 30 and Clemson by 17. Could the #5 team, Georgia, have done that? LSU beat Georgia by 27 a few weeks before, so ... unlikely.

In 2018, Clemson beat Notre Dame by 27 and Alabama by 27. Could #5 Georgia have done that? Alabama had just beat Georgia by 7 and Georgia lost the Sugar Bowl to #11 Texas, so probably not.

In 2017, Alabama beat Clemson by 18 and Georgia by 6 in OT. Could #5 Ohio State have done that? They lost to Oklahoma by 12 at home and by 30 to Iowa for crissakes. Not likely.

In 2016, Clemson beat Ohio State by 30 and Alabama at the buzzer. Could #5 Penn State have done that? They lost to #11 USC in the Rose Bowl.

In 2015, Alabama beat Michigan State by 30 and Clemson by 7. Could #5 Iowa have done that? Iowa lost the Rose Bowl to Stanford.

In 2014, Ohio State beat Alabama by 7 and Oregon by 30. Could #5 Baylor had done that? They lost the Cotton Bowl.

So in four of the six years of the CFP the #5 team hasn't even won their bowl game versus lesser teams.

Thus, it's fair to say that while the CFP has struggled to seed #1 - #4 correctly, they have almost certainly *included* in that top 4 the best team, the national champ. That suggests expansion of the playoffs isn't necessary.

Where you stand on the argument that UCF beat Auburn in the Peach Bowl because Auburn didn’t care to play the game, having just missed the playoff? It seems you’ve made that point before. Couldn’t that same argument apply to these teams as well, where #5 didn’t get “up” for the game? Could one assume like 2017 Auburn, these teams could be motivated if they were in the playoff?

Auburn looked like a lock for the CFP until Pettway went down. Not only did he only play exceedingly sparingly against USF but two defensive starters in the secondary sat out the game for the draft. Auburn was so banged up at the end of the season that even if we had made the CFP were simply weren't healthy enough to compete. The depth at DL and OL was thin due to injuries and the team that finished the year in no way resembled the team that was on the field at mid season, or even through the Georgia and Alabama game.

An 8-team playoff as described makes sense (5 P5 champions, highest-ranked G5 and two at-large). My reasons:

1. The P5-G5 structure is a P5/media creation, designed to enhance the value of the P5 to advertisers, who are the ones who produce a big chunk of the big payouts and TV contracts. Without a slot for the highest-ranked non-P5 team, there is no G5 access at all, which is dumb because ...
2. Cutting out half the fans with direct interest in FBS college football (the G5 teams) is stupid financially. Even the P5 and TV giants like ESPN know that. It's a wonder to me that some of the posters on this board do not.
3. By making the G5 spot #8 and pitting it against #1, the P5 preserves advancement in the CFP in all cases but a rare AppSt-Michigan-type upset. TV can also sell the #1-vs-#8 game as the "Cinderella" game, much like the first-round attractions of the NCAA BB tournament. $$$ rules.
4. The two at-large spots will end up being for Notre Dame and/or 1-2 P5 runners-up; maybe a BYU or Army or whoever if they rank high enough. Nobody, at least overtly, is forced into a conference, which would complicate whatever realignments develop, which expands the debate/negotiations beyond the CFP.

(04-08-2020 11:21 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 09:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 04:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 11:37 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Half of the semi final games have basically been non competitive. Aside from some decent 2vs3 matchups, the games have been lopsided, and now we want 8 teams? A G5 would be shredded even if they somehow won a 1vs8 and get to the Semis. They don't have the depth to compete back to back to back. I don't see it passing any time soon. Maybe after 2026 or whenever the current contract expires. But it's bad for the sport to dilute the field and give conferences autobids. The P5 is punished more with the current model than the proposed one.

Let's see.
#1 seed-first round-won big 3 times, won close once, lost close once and lost big once. Won title once.
#2 seed-first round-won big 4 times, lost close twice. Won title 3 times.
#3 seed-hasn't won title.
#4 seed-won title 2 times.

So should we drop the #3 seed and add #5 to replace them?

All this shows is that #1 - #4 have collectively been pretty close. It doesn't say anything about #5 being able to win the title. I'd say the fact that teams that win tend to dominate mitigates strongly against that. Let's look at #5s:

LSU beat Oklahoma by 30 and Clemson by 17. Could the #5 team, Georgia, have done that? LSU beat Georgia by 27 a few weeks before, so ... unlikely.

In 2018, Clemson beat Notre Dame by 27 and Alabama by 27. Could #5 Georgia have done that? Alabama had just beat Georgia by 7 and Georgia lost the Sugar Bowl to #11 Texas, so probably not.

In 2017, Alabama beat Clemson by 18 and Georgia by 6 in OT. Could #5 Ohio State have done that? They lost to Oklahoma by 12 at home and by 30 to Iowa for crissakes. Not likely.

In 2016, Clemson beat Ohio State by 30 and Alabama at the buzzer. Could #5 Penn State have done that? They lost to #11 USC in the Rose Bowl.

In 2015, Alabama beat Michigan State by 30 and Clemson by 7. Could #5 Iowa have done that? Iowa lost the Rose Bowl to Stanford.

In 2014, Ohio State beat Alabama by 7 and Oregon by 30. Could #5 Baylor had done that? They lost the Cotton Bowl.

So in four of the six years of the CFP the #5 team hasn't even won their bowl game versus lesser teams.

Thus, it's fair to say that while the CFP has struggled to seed #1 - #4 correctly, they have almost certainly *included* in that top 4 the best team, the national champ. That suggests expansion of the playoffs isn't necessary.

Where you stand on the argument that UCF beat Auburn in the Peach Bowl because Auburn didn’t care to play the game, having just missed the playoff? It seems you’ve made that point before. Couldn’t that same argument apply to these teams as well, where #5 didn’t get “up” for the game? Could one assume like 2017 Auburn, these teams could be motivated if they were in the playoff?

That's possible. But how likely is it? One of the big reasons Auburn may not have been motivated - and I've said this too - was because they were playing a G5 team, which, fairly or not, is regarded as drawing the short end of the stick. It's heads you win tails I lose. But Georgia not up for Texas in the Sugar Bowl? Any B1G teams not up for games vs the PAC champ in the Rose Bowl? Baylor not up for the Cotton Bowl, which it hadn't played in in 34 years? Those seem less likely.

Also, there are other reasons to question #5 as well, like
Georgia (twice) having just lost to the teams that then won the title or were beaten by the team that did, Iowa having just lost to Michigan State, etc. It's hard to argue that a team (A) that just lost to playoff team (B) could have then run rampant in the playoffs *over* (B) or over teams that (B) lost to.

(04-08-2020 08:16 PM)Bull Wrote:  Notre Dame from what I've heard is a 'P5 Independent'. Meaning that the P5 conferences 'count' ND (obviously) as a P5 game...

Conferences are like divisions in the NFL. That autobid will obviously be for the G5. There are 10 FBS conferences. For it to be a true playoff everyone needs a pathway, even a shared slot. Otherwise, the p5 should just split and get it over with... Indy can go for the at large slots. That's why 8 is such a perfect number.

If you don't agree with me and feel that the G5 should be tied to rankings, then there should be no conference auto bids, and you just pick the top 8 ranked FBS.

You gotta pick one or the other... but not cherry pick aspects from both that work to your benefit.

I think 12 is the perfect number. Each conference champ gets an autobid just like FCS does it with two at large. Top 4 (likely all P5 Champs) get a bye into round 2 while 5-12 play for the right to get smacked around in round 2 (or pull off an historic upset).

Fans would love it and it would make the game stronger across all the college football landscape, but the P5 ADs and coaches would hate it because they would lose one big recruiting advantage over the G5, "relevancy" because now you'd be able to get into the playoffs from the Sunbelt just as easily as the SEC. It could lead to more parity between the leagues over time, which is why the powers that be would never support it.

(04-09-2020 07:17 AM)JMaddy Wrote:  Fans would love it and it would make the game stronger across all the college football landscape, but the P5 ADs and coaches would hate it because they would lose one big recruiting advantage over the G5, "relevancy" because now you'd be able to get into the playoffs from the Sunbelt just as easily as the SEC. It could lead to more parity between the leagues over time, which is why the powers that be would never support it.

I think this is an important point that is being overlooked. If there had been an 8-team playoff with auto-bid for the G5 champ, since 2014 UCF would have made the playoffs more often than FSU or Florida or Miami, Houston would have made the playoffs more often than Texas or Texas AM, and Memphis would have made the playoffs more often than Tennessee or Ole Miss, and Western Michigan would have made the playoffs more often than Michigan or Nebraska. That's going to boost those "little brother" schools tremendously vs the established powers.

And since more times than not, the school will come from the AAC, this would be a big boon for their P6 campaign.

I'm not sure the powerful schools/conferences are willing to have that, or for other G5 to boost the AAC. But hey, who knows?

There are many valid reasons to expand the playoff to eight and, likewise, to maintain at four.

IF it moves to eight, I would like to see (and I've posted this before) some minimum requirements for the winners of the five P5 leagues and the top G5 choice. If, for example, a 13-0 G5 team has beaten a good, solid P5 team and clearly is a top 10-12-type team, I'm 100 percent fine with having that G5 team in an eight-team playoff. But if it has only 11 wins ... no. Similarly, I would not want, for example, a four-loss (or maybe even a three-loss) P5 team "automatically" go. There have to be basic requirements met for participation.

One model I fully oppose: a six-team playoff

(04-08-2020 09:34 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 07:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 06:04 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I don’t think more than 4 is necessary.

I think what people really want is transparent, objective criteria for picking those 4 teams like a points system anyone can follow like:

2 pts Great Win: Top 10 opponent either On the Road/Neutral Site and by more than 10 points

1.5 pts Good Win: Top 25 opponent

1 pts Win: any win over a Top 100 team

.05 pts Win: any win over a non Top 100 team

-0 pts Great Loss: Top 10 opponent either on the road/neutral site or by less than 7 points

-0.5 pts Good Loss: any loss to Top 25 team

-1 pts: Loss any loss to a Top 100 team

-1.5 pts Bad Loss: any loss to a non Top 100 team

Rewards tough wins while not severely punishing risk taking losses and doesn’t let you feast on cupcakes and expect to play for a title

There is no perfect system. That's the problem. The best system is an objective one. One where its decided on the field. There are clear objective standards for a conference champion. With all 5 in, you don't have to argue whether a 1 loss TCU, 1 loss Stanford, 1 loss Clemson and 1 loss Ohio St. are better than a 2 loss Alabama.

Not all champions are created equal as not all conferences are created equal. There are plenty of years where the champ of a league is nowhere near one of the best 4 teams so Auto bids should be a complete non starter.

Besides in my system, if your league is any good, your champ gets an extra 2 point bonus

Like Ohio St. was no match for Alabama or Oregon in 2014, right? TCU didn't even get in and they destroyed Ole Miss in the bowl 42-3, the only team to beat #1 Alabama in the regular season. After the bowls they decided Ohio St. was #1, TCU #3, Alabama #4.

Or another Ohio St. example, how they had no chance against Miami in 2002? Or how Texas had no chance against USC in 2005?

There is so little data with only 12 games and 0 to 2 games per team vs. other P5 conferences, we really don't know who is best.

(04-09-2020 07:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 07:17 AM)JMaddy Wrote:  Fans would love it and it would make the game stronger across all the college football landscape, but the P5 ADs and coaches would hate it because they would lose one big recruiting advantage over the G5, "relevancy" because now you'd be able to get into the playoffs from the Sunbelt just as easily as the SEC. It could lead to more parity between the leagues over time, which is why the powers that be would never support it.

I think this is an important point that is being overlooked. If there had been an 8-team playoff with auto-bid for the G5 champ, since 2014 UCF would have made the playoffs more often than FSU or Florida or Miami, Houston would have made the playoffs more often than Texas or Texas AM, and Memphis would have made the playoffs more often than Tennessee or Ole Miss, and Western Michigan would have made the playoffs more often than Michigan or Nebraska. That's going to boost those "little brother" schools tremendously vs the established powers.

And since more times than not, the school will come from the AAC, this would be a big boon for their P6 campaign.

I'm not sure the powerful schools/conferences are willing to have that, or for other G5 to boost the AAC. But hey, who knows?

This is a big part of the reason I think there will be more support among the P5 for making Notre Dame eligible for that spot than some might suspect. The Irish getting that spot 60% of the time would actually serve a lot of people's interests.

(04-08-2020 09:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 04:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 11:37 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Half of the semi final games have basically been non competitive. Aside from some decent 2vs3 matchups, the games have been lopsided, and now we want 8 teams? A G5 would be shredded even if they somehow won a 1vs8 and get to the Semis. They don't have the depth to compete back to back to back. I don't see it passing any time soon. Maybe after 2026 or whenever the current contract expires. But it's bad for the sport to dilute the field and give conferences autobids. The P5 is punished more with the current model than the proposed one.

Let's see.
#1 seed-first round-won big 3 times, won close once, lost close once and lost big once. Won title once.
#2 seed-first round-won big 4 times, lost close twice. Won title 3 times.
#3 seed-hasn't won title.
#4 seed-won title 2 times.

So should we drop the #3 seed and add #5 to replace them?

All this shows is that #1 - #4 have collectively been pretty close. It doesn't say anything about #5 being able to win the title. I'd say the fact that teams that win tend to dominate mitigates strongly against that. Let's look at #5s:

LSU beat Oklahoma by 30 and Clemson by 17. Could the #5 team, Georgia, have done that? LSU beat Georgia by 27 a few weeks before, so ... unlikely.

In 2018, Clemson beat Notre Dame by 27 and Alabama by 27. Could #5 Georgia have done that? Alabama had just beat Georgia by 7 and Georgia lost the Sugar Bowl to #11 Texas, so probably not.

In 2017, Alabama beat Clemson by 18 and Georgia by 6 in OT. Could #5 Ohio State have done that? They lost to Oklahoma by 12 at home and by 30 to Iowa for crissakes. Not likely.

In 2016, Clemson beat Ohio State by 30 and Alabama at the buzzer. Could #5 Penn State have done that? They lost to #11 USC in the Rose Bowl.

In 2015, Alabama beat Michigan State by 30 and Clemson by 7. Could #5 Iowa have done that? Iowa lost the Rose Bowl to Stanford.

In 2014, Ohio State beat Alabama by 7 and Oregon by 30. Could #5 Baylor had done that? They lost the Cotton Bowl.

So in four of the six years of the CFP the #5 team hasn't even won their bowl game versus lesser teams.

Thus, it's fair to say that while the CFP has struggled to seed #1 - #4 correctly, they have almost certainly *included* in that top 4 the best team, the national champ. That suggests expansion of the playoffs isn't necessary.

2014 #6 TCU (and everybody thought they were better than Baylor but the committee who had the head to head criteria where TCU blew a 3 TD lead in the last 10 minutes) beat Ole Miss 42-3 who was the only team to beat #1 Alabama.
Baylor similarly blew a 3 TD lead in the 4th vs. Michigan St. who the committee didn't think much of.

TCU was #3 heading into the final week. They won 55-3 and dropped to #6.

TCU was the best team in the country. A bunch of old, fat men in suits sitting in a conference room in Dallas was the difference between TCU or Ohio St winning the national championship.

I don't like TCU at all but they would have won it all in 2014. The defense was healthy and rolling down the stretch. Boykin at QB was all wrong for Bama

(04-09-2020 08:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  2014 #6 TCU (and everybody thought they were better than Baylor but the committee who had the head to head criteria where TCU blew a 3 TD lead in the last 10 minutes) beat Ole Miss 42-3 who was the only team to beat #1 Alabama.
Baylor similarly blew a 3 TD lead in the 4th vs. Michigan St. who the committee didn't think much of.

I sympathize with TCU to an extent, but let's not go overboard. The Ole Miss team they blew out was a 3-loss team going in to the bowl that had just lost 30-0 to 7-6 Arkansas a couple weeks earlier. Let that sink in.

Maybe the Ole Miss argument would be stronger if Alabama won the national title, but no, Alabama lost in the first round of the playoffs. So beating Ole Miss is basically nothing.

TCU's problem, like Baylor's, was their schedule was soft. They played nobody worth mentioning OOC. Even after playing Ole Miss, Sagarin said their schedule was #51. The Big 12 was down that year too. They went 2-5 in bowl games and Baylor and TCU were the only good teams.

Baylor was their only true top-level test that year, and ... they lost.

Can't be compared to Ohio State, who convincingly beat Alabama and then crushed Oregon for the title.

(04-09-2020 08:32 AM)Bogg Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 07:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 07:17 AM)JMaddy Wrote:  Fans would love it and it would make the game stronger across all the college football landscape, but the P5 ADs and coaches would hate it because they would lose one big recruiting advantage over the G5, "relevancy" because now you'd be able to get into the playoffs from the Sunbelt just as easily as the SEC. It could lead to more parity between the leagues over time, which is why the powers that be would never support it.

I think this is an important point that is being overlooked. If there had been an 8-team playoff with auto-bid for the G5 champ, since 2014 UCF would have made the playoffs more often than FSU or Florida or Miami, Houston would have made the playoffs more often than Texas or Texas AM, and Memphis would have made the playoffs more often than Tennessee or Ole Miss, and Western Michigan would have made the playoffs more often than Michigan or Nebraska. That's going to boost those "little brother" schools tremendously vs the established powers.

And since more times than not, the school will come from the AAC, this would be a big boon for their P6 campaign.

I'm not sure the powerful schools/conferences are willing to have that, or for other G5 to boost the AAC. But hey, who knows?

This is a big part of the reason I think there will be more support among the P5 for making Notre Dame eligible for that spot than some might suspect. The Irish getting that spot 60% of the time would actually serve a lot of people's interests.

I disagree, I think there’s resentment from a lot of P5 programs that ND doesn’t have to play a CCG but gets treated the same and none of the G5 conferences are going to be ok with ND playing for the access spot. They’ll have to join a conference or play for the 2 at large spots.

McMurphy article says the 16-team playoff actually has a decent shot and isnt unreasonable considering the post season participation rates of every other major sport.

https://watchstadium.com/the-case-for-a-...4-08-2020/

(04-09-2020 10:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 08:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  2014 #6 TCU (and everybody thought they were better than Baylor but the committee who had the head to head criteria where TCU blew a 3 TD lead in the last 10 minutes) beat Ole Miss 42-3 who was the only team to beat #1 Alabama.
Baylor similarly blew a 3 TD lead in the 4th vs. Michigan St. who the committee didn't think much of.

I sympathize with TCU to an extent, but let's not go overboard. The Ole Miss team they blew out was a 3-loss team going in to the bowl that had just lost 30-0 to 7-6 Arkansas a couple weeks earlier. Let that sink in.

Maybe the Ole Miss argument would be stronger if Alabama won the national title, but no, Alabama lost in the first round of the playoffs. So beating Ole Miss is basically nothing.

TCU's problem, like Baylor's, was their schedule was soft. They played nobody worth mentioning OOC. Even after playing Ole Miss, Sagarin said their schedule was #51. The Big 12 was down that year too. They went 2-5 in bowl games and Baylor and TCU were the only good teams.

Baylor was their only true top-level test that year, and ... they lost.

Can't be compared to Ohio State, who convincingly beat Alabama and then crushed Oregon for the title.

can't compare TCU to tosu because they didn't get the shot to beat Bama, which they would had and also likely beat Oregon as well.

(04-09-2020 11:38 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 10:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2020 08:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  2014 #6 TCU (and everybody thought they were better than Baylor but the committee who had the head to head criteria where TCU blew a 3 TD lead in the last 10 minutes) beat Ole Miss 42-3 who was the only team to beat #1 Alabama.
Baylor similarly blew a 3 TD lead in the 4th vs. Michigan St. who the committee didn't think much of.

I sympathize with TCU to an extent, but let's not go overboard. The Ole Miss team they blew out was a 3-loss team going in to the bowl that had just lost 30-0 to 7-6 Arkansas a couple weeks earlier. Let that sink in.

Maybe the Ole Miss argument would be stronger if Alabama won the national title, but no, Alabama lost in the first round of the playoffs. So beating Ole Miss is basically nothing.

TCU's problem, like Baylor's, was their schedule was soft. They played nobody worth mentioning OOC. Even after playing Ole Miss, Sagarin said their schedule was #51. The Big 12 was down that year too. They went 2-5 in bowl games and Baylor and TCU were the only good teams.

Baylor was their only true top-level test that year, and ... they lost.

Can't be compared to Ohio State, who convincingly beat Alabama and then crushed Oregon for the title.

can't compare TCU to tosu because they didn't get the shot to beat Bama, which they would had and also likely beat Oregon as well.

Right. It's likely TCU beats Alabama and Oregon as well, so you can't compare the two when one arbitrarily got the opportunity.

They both played a regular season. Ohio St's loss was by 2 TD's at home to a 3-5 ACC team. TCU's loss was by a FG on the road at an 11-1 team.