(01-07-2021 09:43 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Here's ESPN.com's discussion on an "ideal" college football playoff.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...-look-like

Everyone they interviewed but one favored giving the highest ranked G5 champ a bid to the playoffs. Whether that was 6 or 8 team playoff.

This may represent the kind of broad based support it would take to get the G5 an auto bid.

I've hypothesized that that the P5 would either condense to a P4 and go P4 champs only or expand to 5, 6, or 8 team playoff with auto-bids for the p5 champs and not have a bid for the G5.

I would still expect the P5/P4 to try to go that route first but if there is a national outcry to include the G5 champ then it will happen. It shouldn't take too much of a gathering on social media that would be too big for the P5 to ignore. If the support is there. This is the first sign I've seen other than this message board that the support it there.

(01-10-2021 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 08:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 06:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 01:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 12:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, if we had had 5/1/2 since the start of the CFP, Houston would have more playoff appearances than Texas, Memphis would have more playoff appearances than Tennessee, Western Michigan would have more playoff appearances than Michigan, and UCF would have more playoff appearances than FSU, Florida or Miami.

I do not think it likely that the P5 will allow such a model to exist.

It already does have such a system. Right now---Houston has just as many playoff appearances as Michigan and Tennesee. Frankly, Houston has been to the playoffs just as much as the vast majority of P5 teams---zero times. Heck, Im pretty sure UCF has more CFP NYD bowl appearances than Tennesee or Michigan as well.

Either way, even if Houston did have more playoff appearances than the major teams you mentioned in a 5-1-2---the fault would lie squarely on the coaches of those teams that missed the playoffs. All they had to do is win their conference or claim a wild card---there would be no committee to blame. Lets be honest---all the wild cards in a 5-1-2 will be coming from the P5 ranks. So, after all the gnashing of teeth---almost twice as many P5 schools (like Tennessee, Michigan, Penn St, Texas, etc) would be entering the playoff each year than do under the current system. Is 5-1-2 perfect-----nope. But its the only system that creates a path for every team at the start of the season, while putting full control of the destiny of each team in that teams hands, while also guaranteeing that the #1 and #2 teams in the nation will always be in the playoff (CCG upsets will not block the #1 and #2 team from making the playoff if the Committee deems them the top two teams).

To me, there's a YUGE difference between Texas having zero playoff berths and Houston having zero playoff berths and Texas having zero playoff berths and Houston having one playoff berth. The little G5 brother having MORE would IMO be a big pride/status thing on both sides.

And I do not think the presence of two wild-cards mollifies that. That number is so small as to not make a bit of difference. Remember, when I say Texas would have zero playoffs and Houston one during the CFP years, that's assuming a 5/1/2 system with two wild-cards. Texas never would have gotten one. Ditto for FSU, Miami, etc. It's just two.

It will be extremely difficult to get in to the top 8, period. To do so while hampered by the presence of autobids that would allow a G5 ranked outside to claim-jump one of them - and yes, a P5 champ that is outside the top 8 to do so as well - makes it that much harder. IMO, those bids will be far to valuable to give away that way.

But maybe we shall see.

To be sure, I don’t think the P5 would *want* to give the G5 a slot of it didn’t have to do so. However, I think that’s the trade-off for each P5 champ getting an auto-bid. I know that we’ve gone around in this debate a lot, but it’s hard for me to see any way that there’s a playoff expansion without P5 auto-bids (regardless of the merits of that system versus a “straight 8” system).

From my perspective, the two biggest drivers of an 8-team playoff would be (1) more money (particularly in a pandemic world where colleges can’t pass up any revenue sources anymore) and (2) the P5 don’t want to be left out of the playoff *ever* again. 99% of the time isn’t good enough - it has to 100% of the time come hell or high water. When you see P5 leagues already so bothered by missing the CFP in a 4-team playoff, just imagine the “house on fire” narratives for a conference commissioner and university presidents of a P5 league misses the playoff in a straight 8 format (like Pac-12 would have this year). The whole point is to protect themselves when their champ is like this year’s Oregon team so they’re still not shut out (which I know is exactly what bothers proponents of a straight 8 system or having some type rankings requirement, but the point is that I can’t imagine how an 8-team playoff happens without 100% guaranteed P5 auto-bids at a minimum in the first place).

Frank, I totally get the notion that the P5 want certainty. That's what it means to be "powerful", you get stuff whether you deserve it or not. Like the P5 currently get a certain bid to an NY6 bowl, whether they deserve it or not.

But, I question how insistent they will be on that w/respect to an 8-team playoff, simply because they've never insisted on it before. At any time in the past 100+ years of major-conference football, the big conferences could have set up a playoff system that guaranteed a spot for each of them in the playoff, and they have never done so. They have set up a bunch of systems the past 30 years - the Bowl Alliance, Bowl Coalition, BCS and now CFP and in any or all of them they could have built that feature in, and yet never have. That suggests to me that it isn't that huge of a deal.

So IMO, since as recently as 2014, the P5 were willing to create a playoff that *guaranteed* that at least one of them would miss the playoffs every year, I do not dismiss the idea that they would be willing to create an 8-team playoff that would give each a much higher percentage chance, such as straight-8, a system that had it been in place since 2014, and not counting this year, would have left only one of them out of the playoffs one single time. To me, that dramatic decrease in the odds of being left out - from 29% in the current CFP (7 times a P5 conference was left out in the first 6 years of the CFP) to 4% in straight 8, is commensurate with how strongly the P5 feel about being included.

Plus, IMO the 5/1/2 model also has the problems of Little Brothers having an easier path to the playoff than a lot of major powers, and the legal issue of each P5 having a guaranteed spot while each G5 conference does not.

But again, maybe we shall see.

College presidents and conference commissioners were saying we would never have a 4 team playoff weeks before it was announced. And 4 is logistically easy. 8 is not as simple because you have 3 "trips" and you have to wander into NFL playoff territory to find TV slots.

After this year, there are going to be a ton of schools looking to make up for the deficit that this year caused. Expanding the playoffs could be a way to make up for this very costly year. 8 is the way to go and the 5-1-2
plan is the best presented.

(01-10-2021 10:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 10:05 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 06:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 01:10 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 05:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If the CFP killed interest in the vast majority of bowls, how come we have more bowl games than ever?

Doesn't compute.

I didn't say they killed the bowl games. I said they killed the interest. We have more bowls than ever because we have more FBS teams than ever.

I don't think bowl games materialize just because new schools join FBS. Someone has to be able to make money off of them.

The fact that we have more bowl games than ever on TV suggests to me that interest is there.

TV=more bowl games. ESPN has how many channels now? The ability to televise games, and by having games sponsored by a network got us here.

There were just as many teams at the top level in the 70’s and there were like 10 bowls.

But .... TV channels can show other things. The fact that ESPN chooses to show a lot of bowls suggests that there is demand for that, greater demand than for alternative programming.

Bottom line is, more bowls are being televised than ever, which suggests demand for bowls on TV is greater than ever.

I argue that there was demand back then too, it just wasn’t feasible to broadcast them.

(01-10-2021 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 08:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 06:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 01:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 12:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, if we had had 5/1/2 since the start of the CFP, Houston would have more playoff appearances than Texas, Memphis would have more playoff appearances than Tennessee, Western Michigan would have more playoff appearances than Michigan, and UCF would have more playoff appearances than FSU, Florida or Miami.

I do not think it likely that the P5 will allow such a model to exist.

It already does have such a system. Right now---Houston has just as many playoff appearances as Michigan and Tennesee. Frankly, Houston has been to the playoffs just as much as the vast majority of P5 teams---zero times. Heck, Im pretty sure UCF has more CFP NYD bowl appearances than Tennesee or Michigan as well.

Either way, even if Houston did have more playoff appearances than the major teams you mentioned in a 5-1-2---the fault would lie squarely on the coaches of those teams that missed the playoffs. All they had to do is win their conference or claim a wild card---there would be no committee to blame. Lets be honest---all the wild cards in a 5-1-2 will be coming from the P5 ranks. So, after all the gnashing of teeth---almost twice as many P5 schools (like Tennessee, Michigan, Penn St, Texas, etc) would be entering the playoff each year than do under the current system. Is 5-1-2 perfect-----nope. But its the only system that creates a path for every team at the start of the season, while putting full control of the destiny of each team in that teams hands, while also guaranteeing that the #1 and #2 teams in the nation will always be in the playoff (CCG upsets will not block the #1 and #2 team from making the playoff if the Committee deems them the top two teams).

To me, there's a YUGE difference between Texas having zero playoff berths and Houston having zero playoff berths and Texas having zero playoff berths and Houston having one playoff berth. The little G5 brother having MORE would IMO be a big pride/status thing on both sides.

And I do not think the presence of two wild-cards mollifies that. That number is so small as to not make a bit of difference. Remember, when I say Texas would have zero playoffs and Houston one during the CFP years, that's assuming a 5/1/2 system with two wild-cards. Texas never would have gotten one. Ditto for FSU, Miami, etc. It's just two.

It will be extremely difficult to get in to the top 8, period. To do so while hampered by the presence of autobids that would allow a G5 ranked outside to claim-jump one of them - and yes, a P5 champ that is outside the top 8 to do so as well - makes it that much harder. IMO, those bids will be far to valuable to give away that way.

But maybe we shall see.

To be sure, I don’t think the P5 would *want* to give the G5 a slot of it didn’t have to do so. However, I think that’s the trade-off for each P5 champ getting an auto-bid. I know that we’ve gone around in this debate a lot, but it’s hard for me to see any way that there’s a playoff expansion without P5 auto-bids (regardless of the merits of that system versus a “straight 8” system).

From my perspective, the two biggest drivers of an 8-team playoff would be (1) more money (particularly in a pandemic world where colleges can’t pass up any revenue sources anymore) and (2) the P5 don’t want to be left out of the playoff *ever* again. 99% of the time isn’t good enough - it has to 100% of the time come hell or high water. When you see P5 leagues already so bothered by missing the CFP in a 4-team playoff, just imagine the “house on fire” narratives for a conference commissioner and university presidents of a P5 league misses the playoff in a straight 8 format (like Pac-12 would have this year). The whole point is to protect themselves when their champ is like this year’s Oregon team so they’re still not shut out (which I know is exactly what bothers proponents of a straight 8 system or having some type rankings requirement, but the point is that I can’t imagine how an 8-team playoff happens without 100% guaranteed P5 auto-bids at a minimum in the first place).

Frank, I totally get the notion that the P5 want certainty. That's what it means to be "powerful", you get stuff whether you deserve it or not. Like the P5 currently get a certain bid to an NY6 bowl, whether they deserve it or not.

But, I question how insistent they will be on that w/respect to an 8-team playoff, simply because they've never insisted on it before. At any time in the past 100+ years of major-conference football, the big conferences could have set up a playoff system that guaranteed a spot for each of them in the playoff, and they have never done so. They have set up a bunch of systems the past 30 years - the Bowl Alliance, Bowl Coalition, BCS and now CFP and in any or all of them they could have built that feature in, and yet never have. That suggests to me that it isn't that huge of a deal.

So IMO, since as recently as 2014, the P5 were willing to create a playoff that *guaranteed* that at least one of them would miss the playoffs every year, I do not dismiss the idea that they would be willing to create an 8-team playoff that would give each a much higher percentage chance, such as straight-8, a system that had it been in place since 2014, and not counting this year, would have left only one of them out of the playoffs one single time. To me, that dramatic decrease in the odds of being left out - from 29% in the current CFP (7 times a P5 conference was left out in the first 6 years of the CFP) to 4% in straight 8, is commensurate with how strongly the P5 feel about being included.

Plus, IMO the 5/1/2 model also has the problems of Little Brothers having an easier path to the playoff than a lot of major powers, and the legal issue of each P5 having a guaranteed spot while each G5 conference does not.

But again, maybe we shall see.

I truly don’t think any decisions in the past to not have a conference champ requirement in the poll era, BCS or CFP systems means anything with respect to an 8-team playoff. Simple math meant that power conferences would be left out in the BCS and CFP systems, but it’s entirely different paradigm when an 8-team playoff inherently *can* handle P5 auto-bids plus at-large bids on top of them. Plus, we weren’t realistically going to see a jump from the 2-team BCS championship to an 8-team playoff. The college power brokers had to be dragged kicking and screaming to just have a 4-team playoff,

Plus, I think it’s intellectually consistent to favor a completely subjective 4-team playoff but want auto-bids in an 8-team playoff. I have never favored any type of conference champ requirement for the 4-team playoff because you have to be 100% subjective with that small of a playoff field, anyway, so there’s no point in adding restrictions. In contrast, an 8-team playoff is large enough to have all P5 champs plus some subjective spots for teams like ND or non-champs. I think a lot of people are underestimating how drastically different the powers that be would look at the construction of a playoff field if/when it’s expanded. The comfort with 100% subjectivity with a 4-team playoff is not going to be the same with an 8-team playoff that is inherently large enough for all P5 champs.

Finally, the college commissioners and presidents didn’t have the experience of the past several years of how their conferences were treated when they didn’t have a team make the playoff. They have been punished in public perception for missing the playoff *much* more compared to the BCS system. This was something that they didn’t really know would happen. It took going through several years of the playoff to actually see that effect. That negative experience (particularly from leagues like the Pac-12 and Big 12) will drive a lot of how the 8-team playoff will be structured.

There have always been auto-bids in college football. Just look at the history of bowl games all the way to current day. Carolina made the Orange Bowl due to an auto-bid when other teams had better records. I’m sure some years in the distant past teams outside the Big Ten and Pac 10 would have put up a better fight in the Granddaddy.

Whether you think it’s fair or not...let me stop you right there. Nothing is fair in college football. Auto-bids are objective, committees are subjective. A hypothetical expanded playoff will surely include P5 auto-bids because the P5 essentially runs the playoff, not the NCAA. Every P5 conference championship becomes a major tv event. What happens outside of that is yet to be determined.

I’m not sold the G5 will get an auto-bid unless they are ranked in the top 8. Remember, it’s the P5’s playoff. What would be really interesting is if the NCAA got savvy and worked with the P5 to separate them into a new sub-division with the NCAA sponsoring the tournament. Lots of kinks to work out, but reclassification is not out of the question.

(01-10-2021 11:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 08:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 06:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 01:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It already does have such a system. Right now---Houston has just as many playoff appearances as Michigan and Tennesee. Frankly, Houston has been to the playoffs just as much as the vast majority of P5 teams---zero times. Heck, Im pretty sure UCF has more CFP NYD bowl appearances than Tennesee or Michigan as well.

Either way, even if Houston did have more playoff appearances than the major teams you mentioned in a 5-1-2---the fault would lie squarely on the coaches of those teams that missed the playoffs. All they had to do is win their conference or claim a wild card---there would be no committee to blame. Lets be honest---all the wild cards in a 5-1-2 will be coming from the P5 ranks. So, after all the gnashing of teeth---almost twice as many P5 schools (like Tennessee, Michigan, Penn St, Texas, etc) would be entering the playoff each year than do under the current system. Is 5-1-2 perfect-----nope. But its the only system that creates a path for every team at the start of the season, while putting full control of the destiny of each team in that teams hands, while also guaranteeing that the #1 and #2 teams in the nation will always be in the playoff (CCG upsets will not block the #1 and #2 team from making the playoff if the Committee deems them the top two teams).

To me, there's a YUGE difference between Texas having zero playoff berths and Houston having zero playoff berths and Texas having zero playoff berths and Houston having one playoff berth. The little G5 brother having MORE would IMO be a big pride/status thing on both sides.

And I do not think the presence of two wild-cards mollifies that. That number is so small as to not make a bit of difference. Remember, when I say Texas would have zero playoffs and Houston one during the CFP years, that's assuming a 5/1/2 system with two wild-cards. Texas never would have gotten one. Ditto for FSU, Miami, etc. It's just two.

It will be extremely difficult to get in to the top 8, period. To do so while hampered by the presence of autobids that would allow a G5 ranked outside to claim-jump one of them - and yes, a P5 champ that is outside the top 8 to do so as well - makes it that much harder. IMO, those bids will be far to valuable to give away that way.

But maybe we shall see.

To be sure, I don’t think the P5 would *want* to give the G5 a slot of it didn’t have to do so. However, I think that’s the trade-off for each P5 champ getting an auto-bid. I know that we’ve gone around in this debate a lot, but it’s hard for me to see any way that there’s a playoff expansion without P5 auto-bids (regardless of the merits of that system versus a “straight 8” system).

From my perspective, the two biggest drivers of an 8-team playoff would be (1) more money (particularly in a pandemic world where colleges can’t pass up any revenue sources anymore) and (2) the P5 don’t want to be left out of the playoff *ever* again. 99% of the time isn’t good enough - it has to 100% of the time come hell or high water. When you see P5 leagues already so bothered by missing the CFP in a 4-team playoff, just imagine the “house on fire” narratives for a conference commissioner and university presidents of a P5 league misses the playoff in a straight 8 format (like Pac-12 would have this year). The whole point is to protect themselves when their champ is like this year’s Oregon team so they’re still not shut out (which I know is exactly what bothers proponents of a straight 8 system or having some type rankings requirement, but the point is that I can’t imagine how an 8-team playoff happens without 100% guaranteed P5 auto-bids at a minimum in the first place).

Frank, I totally get the notion that the P5 want certainty. That's what it means to be "powerful", you get stuff whether you deserve it or not. Like the P5 currently get a certain bid to an NY6 bowl, whether they deserve it or not.

But, I question how insistent they will be on that w/respect to an 8-team playoff, simply because they've never insisted on it before. At any time in the past 100+ years of major-conference football, the big conferences could have set up a playoff system that guaranteed a spot for each of them in the playoff, and they have never done so. They have set up a bunch of systems the past 30 years - the Bowl Alliance, Bowl Coalition, BCS and now CFP and in any or all of them they could have built that feature in, and yet never have. That suggests to me that it isn't that huge of a deal.

So IMO, since as recently as 2014, the P5 were willing to create a playoff that *guaranteed* that at least one of them would miss the playoffs every year, I do not dismiss the idea that they would be willing to create an 8-team playoff that would give each a much higher percentage chance, such as straight-8, a system that had it been in place since 2014, and not counting this year, would have left only one of them out of the playoffs one single time. To me, that dramatic decrease in the odds of being left out - from 29% in the current CFP (7 times a P5 conference was left out in the first 6 years of the CFP) to 4% in straight 8, is commensurate with how strongly the P5 feel about being included.

Plus, IMO the 5/1/2 model also has the problems of Little Brothers having an easier path to the playoff than a lot of major powers, and the legal issue of each P5 having a guaranteed spot while each G5 conference does not.

But again, maybe we shall see.

I truly don’t think any decisions in the past to not have a conference champ requirement in the poll era, BCS or CFP systems means anything with respect to an 8-team playoff. Simple math meant that power conferences would be left out in the BCS and CFP systems, but it’s entirely different paradigm when an 8-team playoff inherently *can* handle P5 auto-bids plus at-large bids on top of them. Plus, we weren’t realistically going to see a jump from the 2-team BCS championship to an 8-team playoff. The college power brokers had to be dragged kicking and screaming to just have a 4-team playoff,

Plus, I think it’s intellectually consistent to favor a completely subjective 4-team playoff but want auto-bids in an 8-team playoff. I have never favored any type of conference champ requirement for the 4-team playoff because you have to be 100% subjective with that small of a playoff field, anyway, so there’s no point in adding restrictions. In contrast, an 8-team playoff is large enough to have all P5 champs plus some subjective spots for teams like ND or non-champs. I think a lot of people are underestimating how drastically different the powers that be would look at the construction of a playoff field if/when it’s expanded. The comfort with 100% subjectivity with a 4-team playoff is not going to be the same with an 8-team playoff that is inherently large enough for all P5 champs.

Finally, the college commissioners and presidents didn’t have the experience of the past several years of how their conferences were treated when they didn’t have a team make the playoff. They have been punished in public perception for missing the playoff *much* more compared to the BCS system. This was something that they didn’t really know would happen. It took going through several years of the playoff to actually see that effect. That negative experience (particularly from leagues like the Pac-12 and Big 12) will drive a lot of how the 8-team playoff will be structured.

One thing I will agree with you Frank is that the decisions aren't made with a lot of foresight just what will work best at the moment. That is why its taken 30 years to go from the Bowl Alliance to BCS and now CFP. CFP has run with the same rules for 7 years which has to be a record.

The decision to give the G5 just one slot in the NY6 was a pretty wise decision in 2012 in the midst of conference displacement and FCS move ups nobody was sure who would be who. The AAC would have liked to think they were going to be the best going forward out of the G5 and they have proved that to be true.

What are the problems at this point in time?

-PAC suffering from not making the playoff.

-G5 deserves a second access bid.

-The 7 independent teams have no guaranteed CFP access beyond the Top 4 spots.

-Schools are bleeding money from the pandemic so an expanded playoff is the one way to help out.

The response to all of this might be different than some are projecting. There could be a 4 team playoff after the bowl games are complete. That would make it feel more like a selection of the Top 4 to decide it instead of what we have now.

In a lot of years the 3rd or 4th in the polls by some estimates was the true best in the country and taking the Top 4 was supposed to eliminate the controversy as to who deserves to be named national champions. It wasn't supposed to be thought of as a playoff per say but more of an extended dual to see who is best.

So far the 4 team playoff hasn't really answered who is the undisputed CFB king because its more about who shows up in the semifinals/finals ect. Maybe 1 or 2 teams were the best by a mile in the CFP era but largely its been no different than the chance outcome of a regular season game.

It may come down to what is going to feel more credible and official. A 12 team playoff with first round bye for the Top 4 might feel more official. Give a bid to all 10 conference champions.

That might push BYU into the AAC as a FB only considering the AAC champ has a good shot of being seeded above the PAC champ like in this year.

1. SEC (Alabama)
2. ACC (Clemson)
3. B1G (Ohio State)
4. at-large (Notre Dame)
5. at-large (Texas A&M)
6. XII (Oklahoma)
7. AAC (Cincinnati)
8. SBC (Coastal Carolina)
9. MWC (San Jose St)
10. PAC (Oregon)
11. CUSA (UAB)
12. MAC (Ball St)

In the first round then it would be this played at home of the higher seed. The idea here is that played in a home stadium the home team will be able to deliver their own fans to the game so its more compatible with smaller G5 programs.

5 vs. 12 (Texas A&M vs. Ball St)
6 vs. 11 (Oklahoma vs. UAB)
7 vs. 10 (Cincinnati vs. Oregon)
8 vs 9 (Coastal Carolina vs. San Jose St)

Then go to the quarters in the Rose, Cotton, Sugar and Orange

Rose (Ohio St vs. Texas A&M)
Cotton (Oklahoma vs. Cincinnati)
Sugar (Alabama vs. Notre Dame)
Orange (Clemson vs. Coastal Carolina)

Try to do it by geography if possible.

(01-11-2021 01:53 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  So far the 4 team playoff hasn't really answered who is the undisputed CFB king because its more about who shows up in the semifinals/finals ect. Maybe 1 or 2 teams were the best by a mile in the CFP era but largely its been no different than the chance outcome of a regular season game.

I would say it has, in that there hasn't been even a hint of a "split" national championship during the CFP era. In the other prior formations - Bowl Alliance, Bowl Coalition, BCS, there was at least one time where there was no consensus national champ, e.g., in 2003 under the BCS, we had LSU as the BCS champ and USC as the AP champ.

Under the CFP, we have had a consensus national champ every year, and it has not been close. We can use the AP as the barometer, as they are entirely independent of the CFP process: In every single year of the CFP, the playoff winner has been the overwhelming choice in the AP poll, IIRC over 90% of AP first-place votes. Sure, fans of particular teams, like TCU in 2014 or UCF in 2017, can claim that this or that was in dispute, but those are tiny minority views that can always exist under any system.

So what the CFP has produced is as rock-solid as you can ever get. And that's because to win the CFP, you not only had to have a great regular season, you then had to beat two teams that also were clearly among the top handful of teams. Nobody else can ever have that kind of resume'.

For all its faults, the CFP does indeed produce one team whose record of achievement is obviously heads and shoulders above anyone else's and is recognized as the undisputed national champion.

(01-10-2021 11:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 08:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 06:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 01:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It already does have such a system. Right now---Houston has just as many playoff appearances as Michigan and Tennesee. Frankly, Houston has been to the playoffs just as much as the vast majority of P5 teams---zero times. Heck, Im pretty sure UCF has more CFP NYD bowl appearances than Tennesee or Michigan as well.

Either way, even if Houston did have more playoff appearances than the major teams you mentioned in a 5-1-2---the fault would lie squarely on the coaches of those teams that missed the playoffs. All they had to do is win their conference or claim a wild card---there would be no committee to blame. Lets be honest---all the wild cards in a 5-1-2 will be coming from the P5 ranks. So, after all the gnashing of teeth---almost twice as many P5 schools (like Tennessee, Michigan, Penn St, Texas, etc) would be entering the playoff each year than do under the current system. Is 5-1-2 perfect-----nope. But its the only system that creates a path for every team at the start of the season, while putting full control of the destiny of each team in that teams hands, while also guaranteeing that the #1 and #2 teams in the nation will always be in the playoff (CCG upsets will not block the #1 and #2 team from making the playoff if the Committee deems them the top two teams).

To me, there's a YUGE difference between Texas having zero playoff berths and Houston having zero playoff berths and Texas having zero playoff berths and Houston having one playoff berth. The little G5 brother having MORE would IMO be a big pride/status thing on both sides.

And I do not think the presence of two wild-cards mollifies that. That number is so small as to not make a bit of difference. Remember, when I say Texas would have zero playoffs and Houston one during the CFP years, that's assuming a 5/1/2 system with two wild-cards. Texas never would have gotten one. Ditto for FSU, Miami, etc. It's just two.

It will be extremely difficult to get in to the top 8, period. To do so while hampered by the presence of autobids that would allow a G5 ranked outside to claim-jump one of them - and yes, a P5 champ that is outside the top 8 to do so as well - makes it that much harder. IMO, those bids will be far to valuable to give away that way.

But maybe we shall see.

To be sure, I don’t think the P5 would *want* to give the G5 a slot of it didn’t have to do so. However, I think that’s the trade-off for each P5 champ getting an auto-bid. I know that we’ve gone around in this debate a lot, but it’s hard for me to see any way that there’s a playoff expansion without P5 auto-bids (regardless of the merits of that system versus a “straight 8” system).

From my perspective, the two biggest drivers of an 8-team playoff would be (1) more money (particularly in a pandemic world where colleges can’t pass up any revenue sources anymore) and (2) the P5 don’t want to be left out of the playoff *ever* again. 99% of the time isn’t good enough - it has to 100% of the time come hell or high water. When you see P5 leagues already so bothered by missing the CFP in a 4-team playoff, just imagine the “house on fire” narratives for a conference commissioner and university presidents of a P5 league misses the playoff in a straight 8 format (like Pac-12 would have this year). The whole point is to protect themselves when their champ is like this year’s Oregon team so they’re still not shut out (which I know is exactly what bothers proponents of a straight 8 system or having some type rankings requirement, but the point is that I can’t imagine how an 8-team playoff happens without 100% guaranteed P5 auto-bids at a minimum in the first place).

Frank, I totally get the notion that the P5 want certainty. That's what it means to be "powerful", you get stuff whether you deserve it or not. Like the P5 currently get a certain bid to an NY6 bowl, whether they deserve it or not.

But, I question how insistent they will be on that w/respect to an 8-team playoff, simply because they've never insisted on it before. At any time in the past 100+ years of major-conference football, the big conferences could have set up a playoff system that guaranteed a spot for each of them in the playoff, and they have never done so. They have set up a bunch of systems the past 30 years - the Bowl Alliance, Bowl Coalition, BCS and now CFP and in any or all of them they could have built that feature in, and yet never have. That suggests to me that it isn't that huge of a deal.

So IMO, since as recently as 2014, the P5 were willing to create a playoff that *guaranteed* that at least one of them would miss the playoffs every year, I do not dismiss the idea that they would be willing to create an 8-team playoff that would give each a much higher percentage chance, such as straight-8, a system that had it been in place since 2014, and not counting this year, would have left only one of them out of the playoffs one single time. To me, that dramatic decrease in the odds of being left out - from 29% in the current CFP (7 times a P5 conference was left out in the first 6 years of the CFP) to 4% in straight 8, is commensurate with how strongly the P5 feel about being included.

Plus, IMO the 5/1/2 model also has the problems of Little Brothers having an easier path to the playoff than a lot of major powers, and the legal issue of each P5 having a guaranteed spot while each G5 conference does not.

But again, maybe we shall see.

I truly don’t think any decisions in the past to not have a conference champ requirement in the poll era, BCS or CFP systems means anything with respect to an 8-team playoff. Simple math meant that power conferences would be left out in the BCS and CFP systems, but it’s entirely different paradigm when an 8-team playoff inherently *can* handle P5 auto-bids plus at-large bids on top of them. Plus, we weren’t realistically going to see a jump from the 2-team BCS championship to an 8-team playoff. The college power brokers had to be dragged kicking and screaming to just have a 4-team playoff,

Plus, I think it’s intellectually consistent to favor a completely subjective 4-team playoff but want auto-bids in an 8-team playoff. I have never favored any type of conference champ requirement for the 4-team playoff because you have to be 100% subjective with that small of a playoff field, anyway, so there’s no point in adding restrictions. In contrast, an 8-team playoff is large enough to have all P5 champs plus some subjective spots for teams like ND or non-champs. I think a lot of people are underestimating how drastically different the powers that be would look at the construction of a playoff field if/when it’s expanded. The comfort with 100% subjectivity with a 4-team playoff is not going to be the same with an 8-team playoff that is inherently large enough for all P5 champs.

Finally, the college commissioners and presidents didn’t have the experience of the past several years of how their conferences were treated when they didn’t have a team make the playoff. They have been punished in public perception for missing the playoff *much* more compared to the BCS system. This was something that they didn’t really know would happen. It took going through several years of the playoff to actually see that effect. That negative experience (particularly from leagues like the Pac-12 and Big 12) will drive a lot of how the 8-team playoff will be structured.

I think they also have another experience. Ohio St. and Alabama going around the country picking off the top recruits. On a consistent basis. The small playoff has greatly benefitted the few teams that have been there frequently. And not just in their region. Clemson is starting to get there.

(01-11-2021 12:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 11:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 08:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 06:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, there's a YUGE difference between Texas having zero playoff berths and Houston having zero playoff berths and Texas having zero playoff berths and Houston having one playoff berth. The little G5 brother having MORE would IMO be a big pride/status thing on both sides.

And I do not think the presence of two wild-cards mollifies that. That number is so small as to not make a bit of difference. Remember, when I say Texas would have zero playoffs and Houston one during the CFP years, that's assuming a 5/1/2 system with two wild-cards. Texas never would have gotten one. Ditto for FSU, Miami, etc. It's just two.

It will be extremely difficult to get in to the top 8, period. To do so while hampered by the presence of autobids that would allow a G5 ranked outside to claim-jump one of them - and yes, a P5 champ that is outside the top 8 to do so as well - makes it that much harder. IMO, those bids will be far to valuable to give away that way.

But maybe we shall see.

To be sure, I don’t think the P5 would *want* to give the G5 a slot of it didn’t have to do so. However, I think that’s the trade-off for each P5 champ getting an auto-bid. I know that we’ve gone around in this debate a lot, but it’s hard for me to see any way that there’s a playoff expansion without P5 auto-bids (regardless of the merits of that system versus a “straight 8” system).

From my perspective, the two biggest drivers of an 8-team playoff would be (1) more money (particularly in a pandemic world where colleges can’t pass up any revenue sources anymore) and (2) the P5 don’t want to be left out of the playoff *ever* again. 99% of the time isn’t good enough - it has to 100% of the time come hell or high water. When you see P5 leagues already so bothered by missing the CFP in a 4-team playoff, just imagine the “house on fire” narratives for a conference commissioner and university presidents of a P5 league misses the playoff in a straight 8 format (like Pac-12 would have this year). The whole point is to protect themselves when their champ is like this year’s Oregon team so they’re still not shut out (which I know is exactly what bothers proponents of a straight 8 system or having some type rankings requirement, but the point is that I can’t imagine how an 8-team playoff happens without 100% guaranteed P5 auto-bids at a minimum in the first place).

Frank, I totally get the notion that the P5 want certainty. That's what it means to be "powerful", you get stuff whether you deserve it or not. Like the P5 currently get a certain bid to an NY6 bowl, whether they deserve it or not.

But, I question how insistent they will be on that w/respect to an 8-team playoff, simply because they've never insisted on it before. At any time in the past 100+ years of major-conference football, the big conferences could have set up a playoff system that guaranteed a spot for each of them in the playoff, and they have never done so. They have set up a bunch of systems the past 30 years - the Bowl Alliance, Bowl Coalition, BCS and now CFP and in any or all of them they could have built that feature in, and yet never have. That suggests to me that it isn't that huge of a deal.

So IMO, since as recently as 2014, the P5 were willing to create a playoff that *guaranteed* that at least one of them would miss the playoffs every year, I do not dismiss the idea that they would be willing to create an 8-team playoff that would give each a much higher percentage chance, such as straight-8, a system that had it been in place since 2014, and not counting this year, would have left only one of them out of the playoffs one single time. To me, that dramatic decrease in the odds of being left out - from 29% in the current CFP (7 times a P5 conference was left out in the first 6 years of the CFP) to 4% in straight 8, is commensurate with how strongly the P5 feel about being included.

Plus, IMO the 5/1/2 model also has the problems of Little Brothers having an easier path to the playoff than a lot of major powers, and the legal issue of each P5 having a guaranteed spot while each G5 conference does not.

But again, maybe we shall see.

I truly don’t think any decisions in the past to not have a conference champ requirement in the poll era, BCS or CFP systems means anything with respect to an 8-team playoff. Simple math meant that power conferences would be left out in the BCS and CFP systems, but it’s entirely different paradigm when an 8-team playoff inherently *can* handle P5 auto-bids plus at-large bids on top of them. Plus, we weren’t realistically going to see a jump from the 2-team BCS championship to an 8-team playoff. The college power brokers had to be dragged kicking and screaming to just have a 4-team playoff,

Plus, I think it’s intellectually consistent to favor a completely subjective 4-team playoff but want auto-bids in an 8-team playoff. I have never favored any type of conference champ requirement for the 4-team playoff because you have to be 100% subjective with that small of a playoff field, anyway, so there’s no point in adding restrictions. In contrast, an 8-team playoff is large enough to have all P5 champs plus some subjective spots for teams like ND or non-champs. I think a lot of people are underestimating how drastically different the powers that be would look at the construction of a playoff field if/when it’s expanded. The comfort with 100% subjectivity with a 4-team playoff is not going to be the same with an 8-team playoff that is inherently large enough for all P5 champs.

Finally, the college commissioners and presidents didn’t have the experience of the past several years of how their conferences were treated when they didn’t have a team make the playoff. They have been punished in public perception for missing the playoff *much* more compared to the BCS system. This was something that they didn’t really know would happen. It took going through several years of the playoff to actually see that effect. That negative experience (particularly from leagues like the Pac-12 and Big 12) will drive a lot of how the 8-team playoff will be structured.

I think they also have another experience. Ohio St. and Alabama going around the country picking off the top recruits. On a consistent basis. The small playoff has greatly benefitted the few teams that have been there frequently. And not just in their region. Clemson is starting to get there.

Yeah that is also true from conference rivals. The 4 team playoff is less about conference affiliation and brand. That's why Bama, tOSU, Clemson, and OU are always top 4, or very close. They themselves carry major brands even without the SEC, Big 12, Big 10, or ACC's help. However if you give teams a wider chance of making it, then the competitiveness slowly creeps back in. Honestly if it isn't Clemson or by extension ND the ACC doesn't bring much firepower anymore and are no better than the PAC12. You could easily see tOSU, OU, BAMA, and either UF, UGA, or LSU every year. It would be dumb to think that a 11-1 Alabama might make it in over a team like South Carolina who wins the SEC and finishes 11-2 or 10-3 because Alabama can be argued to be the "better" team still.

Top Six recruiting Class per 247
2021: Alabama, Ohio State, Georgia, Clemson, LSU, Oregon
2020: Georgia, Alabama, Clemson, LSU, Ohio and Texas A&M
2019: Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Texas A&M, LSU, Oklahoma

Right now the top six for 2022 are shaping up to be the same teams. What do they all have in common in the CFP era.