(04-19-2021 10:10 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 06:39 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  Who is "we"...

Yeah, who is we?

yes i said “WE”, and we is me and y’all posters here, it’s just that y’all don’t know it yet or why i think y’all will agree at some point
no knock against Boise but
no reason to become a A6 when a college championship will be open to allFBS teams and conferences
the A5 will stay the same it’s just that their rigged championship will be seen as “ what’s the point”...

(04-20-2021 03:23 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 10:10 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 06:39 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  Who is "we"...

Yeah, who is we?

yes i said “WE”, and we is me and y’all posters here, it’s just that y’all don’t know it yet or why i think y’all will agree at some point
no knock against Boise but
no reason to become a A6 when a college championship will be open to allFBS teams and conferences
the A5 will stay the same it’s just that their rigged championship will be seen as “ what’s the point”...

Sorry to disagree, But I'm not in it for the 'chip. I doubt we'd ever win one, even if we were magically granted "standing" this year and forevermore. I'm in it to be relevant. To be part of something that is worthwhile. So if Boise came in and made it that much tougher for us to win, that suits me fine. As long as they make the AAC more relevant and the G4 less relevant, that accomplishes my goal.

(04-20-2021 04:00 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 03:23 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 10:10 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 06:39 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  Who is "we"...

Yeah, who is we?

yes i said “WE”, and we is me and y’all posters here, it’s just that y’all don’t know it yet or why i think y’all will agree at some point
no knock against Boise but
no reason to become a A6 when a college championship will be open to allFBS teams and conferences
the A5 will stay the same it’s just that their rigged championship will be seen as “ what’s the point”...

Sorry to disagree, But I'm not in it for the 'chip. I doubt we'd ever win one, even if we were magically granted "standing" this year and forevermore. I'm in it to be relevant. To be part of something that is worthwhile. So if Boise came in and made it that much tougher for us to win, that suits me fine. As long as they make the AAC more relevant and the G4 less relevant, that accomplishes my goal.

This is the point of the P6 campaign- to become relevant. To have access to a championship game. To be able to recruit as if you desire a championship.

(04-20-2021 04:00 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 03:23 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 10:10 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 06:39 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  Who is "we"...

Yeah, who is we?

yes i said “WE”, and we is me and y’all posters here, it’s just that y’all don’t know it yet or why i think y’all will agree at some point
no knock against Boise but
no reason to become a A6 when a college championship will be open to allFBS teams and conferences
the A5 will stay the same it’s just that their rigged championship will be seen as “ what’s the point”...

Sorry to disagree, But I'm not in it for the 'chip. I doubt we'd ever win one, even if we were magically granted "standing" this year and forevermore. I'm in it to be relevant. To be part of something that is worthwhile. So if Boise came in and made it that much tougher for us to win, that suits me fine. As long as they make the AAC more relevant and the G4 less relevant, that accomplishes my goal.

iam not against the g4 at all, my goal is for the g5 to gain popularity in every way, college football needs to to grow bigger and there is a lot of room for the g5 to grow

(04-21-2021 09:14 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 04:00 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 03:23 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 10:10 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 06:39 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  Who is "we"...

Yeah, who is we?

yes i said “WE”, and we is me and y’all posters here, it’s just that y’all don’t know it yet or why i think y’all will agree at some point
no knock against Boise but
no reason to become a A6 when a college championship will be open to allFBS teams and conferences
the A5 will stay the same it’s just that their rigged championship will be seen as “ what’s the point”...

Sorry to disagree, But I'm not in it for the 'chip. I doubt we'd ever win one, even if we were magically granted "standing" this year and forevermore. I'm in it to be relevant. To be part of something that is worthwhile. So if Boise came in and made it that much tougher for us to win, that suits me fine. As long as they make the AAC more relevant and the G4 less relevant, that accomplishes my goal.

iam not against the g4 at all, my goal is for the g5 to gain popularity in every way, college football needs to to grow bigger and there is a lot of room for the g5 to grow

Well, you are a better person than I.

I'm a bit more selfish than that. I want mines...
Down with the G4.

(04-20-2021 01:54 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 12:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 01:49 AM)hammannja Wrote:  Within the discussion of college football play-off expansion, the goal of both the Big10 and the SEC may be to increase the chances of getting additional Big10 and SEC teams into the playoffs while not watering down the per game pay-offs. Nothing more, nothing less. It is likely not about some notion of access or fairness. A G-5 auto-bid might reasonably be perceived as counter-productive to their leagues' goals and picking an expanded format that removes this option as a possibility might be where the two most important conferences in college football settle. And if that's where these two conferences settle, I suspect that is where expansion will settle.

Totally unfair, yes. But the commissioners are charged by their Boards of Governors with thinking about the interests of their member schools, not the interests of college football as a whole. The same can be said for Aresco.

I tend to think that is correct, and it is a point that gets missed around here. On these boards, the overwhelming belief seems to be that an 8-team playoff with a 5-1-2 structure, one that guarantees an autobid to a G5 team, is the most likely outcome of playoff expansion. It's also a favorite of sportswriters, because it allows them to take a "populist stance" against the perceived established powers of the sport.

But I have my doubts, for the reason you expressed - that may not maximize the benefits to the SEC and B1G, the two 800-pound gorillas of college football.

That gets missed on football boards because 5-1-2 would obviously benefit the G5, and the AAC likely most of all, and of course on this forum and others around here, G5 and AAC fans tend to predominate. But that doesn't mean this view reflects the views of those who will make the decisions.

Seems like the Big 10 and SEC (the SEC at least) would be the most likely recipients of the 2 in that scenario. Doesn't seem like two more at-large opportunities would hurt them. The recipient last year would have been Texas A&M or Florida(assuming Oklahoma and USC are shifted into the mix with titles).

That's one way to look at it. Another is that a guaranteed spot for the G5 - or for any of the other P5 for that matter - could take a spot away from yet another SEC or B1G team.

Under 5-1-2, and using CFP rankings as a guide, in 2020, Florida would have missed the playoffs due to the PAC champ getting in. In 2019, Wisconsin would have missed the playoffs due to the G5 team (Memphis) getting in.

Those are sports those conferences may not want to give up, and thus prefer a straight-8 model or 5-3 model.

(04-21-2021 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 01:54 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 12:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 01:49 AM)hammannja Wrote:  Within the discussion of college football play-off expansion, the goal of both the Big10 and the SEC may be to increase the chances of getting additional Big10 and SEC teams into the playoffs while not watering down the per game pay-offs. Nothing more, nothing less. It is likely not about some notion of access or fairness. A G-5 auto-bid might reasonably be perceived as counter-productive to their leagues' goals and picking an expanded format that removes this option as a possibility might be where the two most important conferences in college football settle. And if that's where these two conferences settle, I suspect that is where expansion will settle.

Totally unfair, yes. But the commissioners are charged by their Boards of Governors with thinking about the interests of their member schools, not the interests of college football as a whole. The same can be said for Aresco.

I tend to think that is correct, and it is a point that gets missed around here. On these boards, the overwhelming belief seems to be that an 8-team playoff with a 5-1-2 structure, one that guarantees an autobid to a G5 team, is the most likely outcome of playoff expansion. It's also a favorite of sportswriters, because it allows them to take a "populist stance" against the perceived established powers of the sport.

But I have my doubts, for the reason you expressed - that may not maximize the benefits to the SEC and B1G, the two 800-pound gorillas of college football.

That gets missed on football boards because 5-1-2 would obviously benefit the G5, and the AAC likely most of all, and of course on this forum and others around here, G5 and AAC fans tend to predominate. But that doesn't mean this view reflects the views of those who will make the decisions.

Seems like the Big 10 and SEC (the SEC at least) would be the most likely recipients of the 2 in that scenario. Doesn't seem like two more at-large opportunities would hurt them. The recipient last year would have been Texas A&M or Florida(assuming Oklahoma and USC are shifted into the mix with titles).

That's one way to look at it. Another is that a guaranteed spot for the G5 - or for any of the other P5 for that matter - could take a spot away from yet another SEC or B1G team.

Under 5-1-2, and using CFP rankings as a guide, in 2020, Florida would have missed the playoffs due to the PAC champ getting in. In 2019, Wisconsin would have missed the playoffs due to the G5 team (Memphis) getting in.

Those are sports those conferences may not want to give up, and thus prefer a straight-8 model or 5-3 model.

But with respect to Wisconsin---the Pac12 WOULD favor it because the Pac-12 champ would have been INCLUDED. The fact is, every P5 has been left out except the SEC. From a P5 standpoint, there will be 3 more slots open to P5's EVERY year than there are now. The problem the P5 has is the current argument that "the G5 is eligible for the playoff" will be dead after 12 years of the Selection Committee saying the undefeated G5's simply dont have the strength of schedule to be ranked that high. Effectively, the structure of the CFP is saying the G5 is not eligible. Furthermore, making it a 8 team playoff---while leaving the selection committee heavily tilted in favor of P5 representation simply makes it more likely that the 9th ranking slot will become the new G5 "glass ceiling" as promoting a G5 above that rank will cost a P5 conference a slot.

The problem is there is no real way to determine relative strength when a team wins all its games against a weaker schedule. All we know is they were better than everyone they played. What we HAVE seen is that when tested against top 10 P5 team's that did play a tough P5 schedule---these undefeated G5 teams are generally quite competitive and quite often win. Thus, in light of the fact G5's can do little to make their schedules look like a P5 schedule---and in light of fact that the top G5 representative when tested has proven worthy far more often than not---there is really no logical argument to continue with any system that will essentially forever lock out the top finisher of literally half of the FBS conferences.

Giving each P5 champion a playoff slot and awarding the top G5 champ a playoff slot (effectively treating the entire 65 member G5 the same as one power conference) may not be the perfect answer---but its far more reasonable and equitable than the current system. To me---its the only logical compromise that makes much sense.

(04-21-2021 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 01:54 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 12:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 01:49 AM)hammannja Wrote:  Within the discussion of college football play-off expansion, the goal of both the Big10 and the SEC may be to increase the chances of getting additional Big10 and SEC teams into the playoffs while not watering down the per game pay-offs. Nothing more, nothing less. It is likely not about some notion of access or fairness. A G-5 auto-bid might reasonably be perceived as counter-productive to their leagues' goals and picking an expanded format that removes this option as a possibility might be where the two most important conferences in college football settle. And if that's where these two conferences settle, I suspect that is where expansion will settle.

Totally unfair, yes. But the commissioners are charged by their Boards of Governors with thinking about the interests of their member schools, not the interests of college football as a whole. The same can be said for Aresco.

I tend to think that is correct, and it is a point that gets missed around here. On these boards, the overwhelming belief seems to be that an 8-team playoff with a 5-1-2 structure, one that guarantees an autobid to a G5 team, is the most likely outcome of playoff expansion. It's also a favorite of sportswriters, because it allows them to take a "populist stance" against the perceived established powers of the sport.

But I have my doubts, for the reason you expressed - that may not maximize the benefits to the SEC and B1G, the two 800-pound gorillas of college football.

That gets missed on football boards because 5-1-2 would obviously benefit the G5, and the AAC likely most of all, and of course on this forum and others around here, G5 and AAC fans tend to predominate. But that doesn't mean this view reflects the views of those who will make the decisions.

Seems like the Big 10 and SEC (the SEC at least) would be the most likely recipients of the 2 in that scenario. Doesn't seem like two more at-large opportunities would hurt them. The recipient last year would have been Texas A&M or Florida(assuming Oklahoma and USC are shifted into the mix with titles).

That's one way to look at it. Another is that a guaranteed spot for the G5 - or for any of the other P5 for that matter - could take a spot away from yet another SEC or B1G team.

Under 5-1-2, and using CFP rankings as a guide, in 2020, Florida would have missed the playoffs due to the PAC champ getting in. In 2019, Wisconsin would have missed the playoffs due to the G5 team (Memphis) getting in.

Those are sports those conferences may not want to give up, and thus prefer a straight-8 model or 5-3 model.

But with respect to Wisconsin---the Pac12 WOULD favor it because it the Pac-12 champ would have been INCLUDED. The fact is, every P5 has been left out except the SEC. The fact is, from a P5 standpoint, there will 3 more slots open to P5's EVERY year than there are now. The problem the P5 has is the current argument that "the G5 is eligible for the playoff" will be dead after 12 years of the Selection Committee saying the undefeated G5's simply dont have the strength of schedule to be ranked that high. Effectively, the structure of the CFP is saying the G5 is not eligible. Furthermore, making it a 8 team playoff---while leaving the selection committee heavily tilted in favor of P5 representation simply makes it more likely that the 9th ranking slot will become the new G5 "glass ceiling" as promoting a G5 above that rank will cost a P5 conference a slot.

The problem is there is no real way to determine relative strength when a team wins all its games against a weaker schedule. All we know is they were better than everyone they played. What we HAVE seen is that when tested against a top 10 P5 team's that did play a tough P5 schedule---these undefeated G5 teams are generally quite competitive and quite often win. Thus, in light of the fact G5's can do little to make their schedules look like a P5 schedule---and in light of fact that the top G5 representative when tested has proven worthy far more often than not---there is really no logical argument to continue with any system that will essentially forever lock out the top finisher literally half of the FBS conferences.

Giving each P5 champion a playoff slot and awarding the top G5 champ a playoff slot (effectively treating the entire 65 member G5 the same as one power conference) may not be the perfect answer---but it far more reasonable and equitable than the current system. To me---its the only logical compromise that makes much sense.

Did anyone see how quickly the fans killed the european soccer super league? Do you know why? Because it wasn't a real competition and therefore it wasn't a real sport. Look at this squabble should there be automatic berths for champions, for whose champion in this 8 team........

Don't let them convince you we need to reinvent the wheel.

It's simple 16 teams. First round home games go only to those with automatic berths from conference championships. Independents get an auto berth with a top 10 ranking, if two qualify the highest ranked is given the auto, the other will be an at large. Committee gives out the seeding done regardless of home game and names the five to six at larges.

First Round: (Start first Tuesday night one week after championship games, single game Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, full day Saturday to finish round)
Campus play, home team must be automatic qualifier

Quarterfinals: (regionalized assignment)
Fiesta, Peach, Cotton, Citrus

Semi Finals/Finals: (Rotating)
Rose, Sugar, Orange

Keeps travel down, keeps the bowls valuable and happy. Gives a real championship. Allows minor bowls to continue but gives ESPN valuable product to dominate during bowl season.

If you play in a conference championship game their would be 14 games with just a bowl game system. 12 regular season, 1 exempt championship, 1 post season bowl game.

In this scenario 8 teams will play an extra game (first round would be a bowl team anyway) or 15, four teams will play two extra games or 16. Two teams will play 17 (if they played in their championship game) or 16. So the added games overall is low.

Committee still there, everyone gets a chance, Cinderella possible, p5 will get the extra berths/money, rewards good teams with home games, interesting match ups possible.

(04-21-2021 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 01:54 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 12:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 01:49 AM)hammannja Wrote:  Within the discussion of college football play-off expansion, the goal of both the Big10 and the SEC may be to increase the chances of getting additional Big10 and SEC teams into the playoffs while not watering down the per game pay-offs. Nothing more, nothing less. It is likely not about some notion of access or fairness. A G-5 auto-bid might reasonably be perceived as counter-productive to their leagues' goals and picking an expanded format that removes this option as a possibility might be where the two most important conferences in college football settle. And if that's where these two conferences settle, I suspect that is where expansion will settle.

Totally unfair, yes. But the commissioners are charged by their Boards of Governors with thinking about the interests of their member schools, not the interests of college football as a whole. The same can be said for Aresco.

I tend to think that is correct, and it is a point that gets missed around here. On these boards, the overwhelming belief seems to be that an 8-team playoff with a 5-1-2 structure, one that guarantees an autobid to a G5 team, is the most likely outcome of playoff expansion. It's also a favorite of sportswriters, because it allows them to take a "populist stance" against the perceived established powers of the sport.

But I have my doubts, for the reason you expressed - that may not maximize the benefits to the SEC and B1G, the two 800-pound gorillas of college football.

That gets missed on football boards because 5-1-2 would obviously benefit the G5, and the AAC likely most of all, and of course on this forum and others around here, G5 and AAC fans tend to predominate. But that doesn't mean this view reflects the views of those who will make the decisions.

Seems like the Big 10 and SEC (the SEC at least) would be the most likely recipients of the 2 in that scenario. Doesn't seem like two more at-large opportunities would hurt them. The recipient last year would have been Texas A&M or Florida(assuming Oklahoma and USC are shifted into the mix with titles).

That's one way to look at it. Another is that a guaranteed spot for the G5 - or for any of the other P5 for that matter - could take a spot away from yet another SEC or B1G team.

Under 5-1-2, and using CFP rankings as a guide, in 2020, Florida would have missed the playoffs due to the PAC champ getting in. In 2019, Wisconsin would have missed the playoffs due to the G5 team (Memphis) getting in.

Those are sports those conferences may not want to give up, and thus prefer a straight-8 model or 5-3 model.

But with respect to Wisconsin---the Pac12 WOULD favor it because it the Pac-12 champ would have been INCLUDED. The fact is, every P5 has been left out except the SEC. The fact is, from a P5 standpoint, there will 3 more slots open to P5's EVERY year than there are now. The problem the P5 has is the current argument that "the G5 is eligible for the playoff" will be dead after 12 years of the Selection Committee saying the undefeated G5's simply dont have the strength of schedule to be ranked that high. Effectively, the structure of the CFP is saying the G5 is not eligible. Furthermore, making it a 8 team playoff---while leaving the selection committee heavily tilted in favor of P5 representation simply makes it more likely that the 9th ranking slot will become the new G5 "glass ceiling" as promoting a G5 above that rank will cost a P5 conference a slot.

The problem is there is no real way to determine relative strength when a team wins all its games against a weaker schedule. All we know is they were better than everyone they played. What we HAVE seen is that when tested against a top 10 P5 team's that did play a tough P5 schedule---these undefeated G5 teams are generally quite competitive and quite often win. Thus, in light of the fact G5's can do little to make their schedules look like a P5 schedule---and in light of fact that the top G5 representative when tested has proven worthy far more often than not---there is really no logical argument to continue with any system that will essentially forever lock out the top finisher literally half of the FBS conferences.

Giving each P5 champion a playoff slot and awarding the top G5 champ a playoff slot (effectively treating the entire 65 member G5 the same as one power conference) may not be the perfect answer---but it far more reasonable and equitable than the current system. To me---its the only logical compromise that makes much sense.

As the other guy said, what is "reasonable and equitable" may not be what prevails. My belief is, no matter what anyone else wants, if the SEC and B1G oppose something, it isn't happening.

Now in that regard, IMO it was important around 2017 or so when the B1G missed out, when Delany started grumbling about the playoff format. But since Ohio State made the playoffs the last two seasons, you don't hear the B1G complaining anymore.

Sure, the G5 will have an ally in the PAC. But the ACC has also always made the playoffs, and the Big 12 had for several years.

In the end, though, I'm not even sure those conferences matter. If the SEC and B1G are against expansion, I don't think it happens. And if it does happen, it would not surprise me if they are unwilling to allow for a G5 guaranteed spot that would take away playoff spots from themselves.

Beyond that, I do not think the P5 have a "problem" in that the G5 never makes the playoffs. Back in 2012, I think if you asked the typical CFP representative how many times they expect a G5 team to make the playoffs over the 12 years of the CFP, the typical answer would have been "none". And that wasn't a problem then and I don't see it being a problem in 2025. It seems to be a problem in the minds of people who do not count for much - fans of G5 conferences, and sportswriters and bloggers who want to be on the side of the "little guy". I'm not saying this is right, I do think it is reality.

As for performance, remember, the G5 rep has lost their NY6 game three straight years. That's not the kind of data that suggests the need for their inclusion, especially when they were playing second-level P5, not playoff level P5. The G5 position would be strengthened if it racks up wins in the NY6 games between now and 2024.

But maybe we shall see.

I’m a champion of the 5-1-2 model. Everyone starts the season with a clear picture of what they need to do to make the playoff.

There’s also very little that’s left to a panel to decide:

They are picking 2 at-larges, comparing the resumes of 5 G5 champs, and seeding the field of 8.

(04-21-2021 01:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m a champion of the 5-1-2 model. Everyone starts the season with a clear picture of what they need to do to make the playoff.

There’s also very little that’s left to a panel to decide:

They are picking 2 at-larges, comparing the resumes of 5 G5 champs, and seeding the field of 8.

Thats the way I like it. Five slots are entirely decided on the field. The Selection Committee has to decide which is the best of the G5 champs. But at least willowing the G5 teams down to just 5 candidates is decided entirely on the field. Many years, its going to be pretty obvious--especially if there is just one undefeated G5 champ. Some years it will be a beauty contest---but logistically this is the best we can probably hope for. Just having a real legit path to the playoff is a game changer in my view. I can live with a G5 existence if there is at least a legit path to playoff each year.

That leaves only 2 slots that are entirely "beauty contest" slots---the two wild cards. Since the wild cards represent "second chance" paths into the playoffs---Im ok with the beauty contest angle. That means these teams had a chance to win their conference and failed. Thus---any remaining path to the playoff is kind of a gift of mercy and you cant complain too much if another team gets the gift over your team.

(04-21-2021 02:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 01:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m a champion of the 5-1-2 model. Everyone starts the season with a clear picture of what they need to do to make the playoff.

There’s also very little that’s left to a panel to decide:

They are picking 2 at-larges, comparing the resumes of 5 G5 champs, and seeding the field of 8.

Thats the way I like it. Five slots are entirely decided on the field. The Selection Committee has to decide which is the best of the G5 champs. But at least willowing the G5 teams down to just 5 candidates is decided entirely on the field. Many years, its going to be pretty obvious--especially if there is just one undefeated G5 champ. Some years it will be a beauty contest---but logistically this is the best we can probably hope for. Just having a real legit path to the playoff is a game changer in my view. I can live with a G5 existence if there is at least a legit path to playoff each year.

That leaves only 2 slots that are entirely "beauty contest" slots---the two wild cards. Since the wild cards represent "second chance" paths into the playoffs---Im ok with the beauty contest angle. That means these teams had a chance to win their conference and failed. Thus---any remaining path to the playoff is kind of a gift of mercy and you cant complain too much if another team gets the gift over your team.

I’m glad someone else sees eye to eye.

The 2 wild cards should absolutely be beauty contests. Those spots will come down to who played the toughest schedule and won decisively.

The same goes for choosing among the G5 champs.

I agree with your sentiment about the at-larges being 2nd chances. If you didn’t win your conference, you better be giving the committee some really good reasons for why you should still have a shot at the title.

(04-21-2021 01:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m a champion of the 5-1-2 model. Everyone starts the season with a clear picture of what they need to do to make the playoff.

There’s also very little that’s left to a panel to decide:

They are picking 2 at-larges, comparing the resumes of 5 G5 champs, and seeding the field of 8.

Well, that's true if you are a P5 school - win the conference and you are in.

But for the G5 it is the same kind of "beauty contest" that everyone faces for the playoffs right now.

Now sure, that's better for the G5 than what it has now. But really, the reason 5-1-2 seems to have much more support among AAC fans than fans of other G5 is that AAC fans, and probably quite correctly, assume that the AAC champ will benefit from the same kind of "beauty contest bias" in its favor compared to the other G conferences as the P5 have towards the G5 right now, making it a kind of de-facto AAC spot.

I mean, just look at Cincy vs Coastal this past season for the G5 NY6 spot. On paper, very similar resumes, but Cincy was always ranked comfortably ahead.

(04-21-2021 04:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 01:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m a champion of the 5-1-2 model. Everyone starts the season with a clear picture of what they need to do to make the playoff.

There’s also very little that’s left to a panel to decide:

They are picking 2 at-larges, comparing the resumes of 5 G5 champs, and seeding the field of 8.

Well, that's true if you are a P5 school - win the conference and you are in.

But for the G5 it is the same kind of "beauty contest" that everyone faces for the playoffs right now.

Now sure, that's better for the G5 than what it has now. But really, the reason 5-1-2 seems to have much more support among AAC fans than fans of other G5 is that AAC fans, and probably quite correctly, assume that the AAC champ will benefit from the same kind of "beauty contest bias" in its favor compared to the other G conferences as the P5 have towards the G5 right now, making it a kind of de-facto AAC spot.

I mean, just look at Cincy vs Coastal this past season for the G5 NY6 spot. On paper, very similar resumes, but Cincy was always ranked comfortably ahead.

I dont see that. Ive yet to see any G5 fan be against the 5-1-2. Even if they agree with you that the AAC has an advantage---they still will be for it because (and this applies to the AAC as well) its the best they are going to get. There wont be a G5 playoff for the G5 slot (takes too much time and brings up too many player safety issues) and there wont be a 16 team playoff that takes every champ (for the same reasons). It is what it is. There may be a selection committee bias toward the AAC---but that bias is small. Coastal was only 4 places behind Cinci (8th vs 12th). Is there any question that Cinci would have fallen more than 4 slots with a loss? So, Coastal was basically one Bearcat loss from the G5 getting the G5 access bowl slot.

I think that shows that a 1-loss AAC team beating out a undefeated G4 is fairly unlikely---and clearly a 2 loss AAC team has zero chance of beating out an undefeated G4. Thus--this is not like the P5-G5 bias we normally see from the Committee....its more of a less intrusive (and frankly reasonable) tie goes to the AAC type bias. I think the AAC will dominate a G5 playoff slot----but there are going to be years when a G4 goes to the playoff....and while that may not be perfectly equitable-----thats miles better than the current system for any G5 team.

(04-21-2021 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ...
In the end, though, I'm not even sure those conferences matter. If the SEC and B1G are against expansion, I don't think it happens.....

I'm not so sure the PACXII, BigXII, and the ACC wouldn't like to remind the SEC and the BigX that they are but 2 of 5 votes.

(04-21-2021 05:37 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  I'm not so sure the PACXII, BigXII, and the ACC wouldn't like to remind the SEC and the BigX that they are but 2 of 5 votes.

I suspect that would have as much weight as the nine other members of the Big12 telling Texas it is but one of 10 votes. Oklahoma is the only other team in the Big12 that really has a "full" vote because it can always leave for greener pastures.

But I agree with you, however, that this influence matters. The Big10 and Pac12 prefer to vote together on things in recognition of their long-standing highly-successful partnership around the Rose Bowl. And the Big10 probably still views Texas as one of its top expansion candidates (sans Texas Tech) so it would want to avoid getting too confrontational with it.

(04-21-2021 05:37 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ...
In the end, though, I'm not even sure those conferences matter. If the SEC and B1G are against expansion, I don't think it happens.....

I'm not so sure the PACXII, BigXII, and the ACC wouldn't like to remind the SEC and the BigX that they are but 2 of 5 votes.

^^^ This. I believe the ACC, Big12 and PAC12 would take a little less of something rather than get nothing. Face it, ESPN has been pushing the fact that the ACC is the lesser of the easter Conferences, that the Vig12 is unstable and the PAC has a monetary short fall. All of which may be true but, they don't need to keep bringing it up. Yet, they do. This is why so many believe the SEC and The B1G will expand.

(04-21-2021 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 01:54 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 12:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 01:49 AM)hammannja Wrote:  Within the discussion of college football play-off expansion, the goal of both the Big10 and the SEC may be to increase the chances of getting additional Big10 and SEC teams into the playoffs while not watering down the per game pay-offs. Nothing more, nothing less. It is likely not about some notion of access or fairness. A G-5 auto-bid might reasonably be perceived as counter-productive to their leagues' goals and picking an expanded format that removes this option as a possibility might be where the two most important conferences in college football settle. And if that's where these two conferences settle, I suspect that is where expansion will settle.

Totally unfair, yes. But the commissioners are charged by their Boards of Governors with thinking about the interests of their member schools, not the interests of college football as a whole. The same can be said for Aresco.

I tend to think that is correct, and it is a point that gets missed around here. On these boards, the overwhelming belief seems to be that an 8-team playoff with a 5-1-2 structure, one that guarantees an autobid to a G5 team, is the most likely outcome of playoff expansion. It's also a favorite of sportswriters, because it allows them to take a "populist stance" against the perceived established powers of the sport.

But I have my doubts, for the reason you expressed - that may not maximize the benefits to the SEC and B1G, the two 800-pound gorillas of college football.

That gets missed on football boards because 5-1-2 would obviously benefit the G5, and the AAC likely most of all, and of course on this forum and others around here, G5 and AAC fans tend to predominate. But that doesn't mean this view reflects the views of those who will make the decisions.

Seems like the Big 10 and SEC (the SEC at least) would be the most likely recipients of the 2 in that scenario. Doesn't seem like two more at-large opportunities would hurt them. The recipient last year would have been Texas A&M or Florida(assuming Oklahoma and USC are shifted into the mix with titles).

That's one way to look at it. Another is that a guaranteed spot for the G5 - or for any of the other P5 for that matter - could take a spot away from yet another SEC or B1G team.

Under 5-1-2, and using CFP rankings as a guide, in 2020, Florida would have missed the playoffs due to the PAC champ getting in. In 2019, Wisconsin would have missed the playoffs due to the G5 team (Memphis) getting in.

Those are sports those conferences may not want to give up, and thus prefer a straight-8 model or 5-3 model.

But with respect to Wisconsin---the Pac12 WOULD favor it because it the Pac-12 champ would have been INCLUDED. The fact is, every P5 has been left out except the SEC. The fact is, from a P5 standpoint, there will 3 more slots open to P5's EVERY year than there are now. The problem the P5 has is the current argument that "the G5 is eligible for the playoff" will be dead after 12 years of the Selection Committee saying the undefeated G5's simply dont have the strength of schedule to be ranked that high. Effectively, the structure of the CFP is saying the G5 is not eligible. Furthermore, making it a 8 team playoff---while leaving the selection committee heavily tilted in favor of P5 representation simply makes it more likely that the 9th ranking slot will become the new G5 "glass ceiling" as promoting a G5 above that rank will cost a P5 conference a slot.

The problem is there is no real way to determine relative strength when a team wins all its games against a weaker schedule. All we know is they were better than everyone they played. What we HAVE seen is that when tested against a top 10 P5 team's that did play a tough P5 schedule---these undefeated G5 teams are generally quite competitive and quite often win. Thus, in light of the fact G5's can do little to make their schedules look like a P5 schedule---and in light of fact that the top G5 representative when tested has proven worthy far more often than not---there is really no logical argument to continue with any system that will essentially forever lock out the top finisher literally half of the FBS conferences.

Giving each P5 champion a playoff slot and awarding the top G5 champ a playoff slot (effectively treating the entire 65 member G5 the same as one power conference) may not be the perfect answer---but it far more reasonable and equitable than the current system. To me---its the only logical compromise that makes much sense.

^Wisdom here^

Okay I have been watching the espn articles and anything on aac news this week. Am I missing something? What did AAC do that big East didn’t? Did I miss anything?

(04-21-2021 08:25 PM)Starfox207 Wrote:  Okay I have been watching the espn articles and anything on aac news this week. Am I missing something? What did AAC do that big East didn’t? Did I miss anything?

As best as I can tell, we are still on the crossroads. The AAC announced the start of football practice. BE had nothing to counter with.

Brilliant strategy. If I had a twitter account, I would re-tweet.