If we’re talking just a play-in game for top 2 G5 Champs, I’d be down for a 10 team playoff with the P5 Champs, top 2 G5 Champs, and top 3 at-large teams provided that conference championship games are able to become the top 2 teams in their conference rather than division champs. The 2 play-in games would be the lower 2 ranked at large teams playing each other and either the 2 G5 champs or lower 2 ranked of the 7 conference champs. Then seeds the 8 remaining teams 1-8 based on rank. This likely won’t happen because the P5 probably doesn’t want 1 G5 champ and definitely not 2, but it’s a fun concept to consider. Here are 8 years of examples:

2020 (Covid year, made things interesting):
#1 Alabama, #2 Clemson, #3 Ohio State, #4 Notre Dame*, #6 Oklahoma,
#8 Cincinnati (9-0) or #25 Oregon (4-2)
Play-in Games:
#7 Florida-#5 Texas A&M (conference rematch)
#25 Oregon-#12 Coastal Carolina (11-0) or #12 Coastal Carolina-#8 Cincinnati

#22 San Jose State (7-0) misses out as 3rd G5 champ
#10 Iowa State and #17 USC miss playoffs due to conference championship game upsets
#25 Oregon should be in the play-in game, but I think the P5 would have the 2 G5 champs play each other


2019:
#1 LSU, #2 Ohio State, #3 Clemson, #4 Oklahoma, #5 Georgia*, #6 Oregon
Play-in Games:
#8 Wisconsin-#7 Baylor
#19 Boise State-#17 Memphis

#20 Appalachian State (12-1) barely misses out as 3rd G5 champ
#11 Utah misses playoff due to conference championship upset


2018:
#1 Alabama, #2 Clemson, #3 Notre Dame*, #4 Oklahoma, #6 Ohio State,
#8 UCF (12-0) or #9 Washington (10-3)
Play-in Games:
#7 Michigan-#5 Georgia
#21 Fresno State-#8 UCF or #9 Washington

#9 Washington should be in the play-in game, but again, I think the P5 would have the 2 G5 champs play each other
#25 Boise State misses playoff due to conference championship upset


2017:
#1 Clemson, #2 Oklahoma, #3 Georgia, #4 Alabama*, #5 Ohio State, #8 USC
Play-in Games:
#7 Auburn-#6 Wisconsin
#25 Boise State-#12 UCF

#7 Auburn and #6 Wisconsin both dropped to play-in game from conference championship upsets
#10 Miami (FL) misses playoff due to conference championship loss
Fresno State misses playoff due to conference championship upset


2016:
#1 Alabama, #2 Clemson, #3 Ohio State*, #4 Washington, #5 Penn State, #7 Oklahoma
Play-in Games:
#8 Wisconsin-#6 Michigan (conference rematch)
#24 Temple-#15 Western Michigan

#25 Navy misses playoff due to conference championship upset
#8 Wisconsin dropped to play-in game due to conference championship upset


2015:
#1 Clemson, #2 Alabama, #3 Michigan State, #4 Oklahoma, #5 Iowa*, #6 Stanford
Play-in Games:
#8 Notre Dame-#7 Ohio State
Western Kentucky (11-2)-#18 Houston

#3 Michigan State upset #5 Iowa in Big Ten Championship, otherwise no drama


2014:
#1 Alabama, #2 Oregon, #3 Florida State, #4 Ohio State, #5 Baylor, #6 TCU*
Play-in Games:
#8 Michigan State-#7 Mississippi State
Marshall (12-1)-#20 Boise State

#10 Arizona misses playoff with conference championship loss
#11 Kansas State potentially misses due to Week 15 loss
#7 Mississippi State jumps from 10 to 7 without playing a game leaping #8 Michigan State


2013:
#1 Florida State, #2 Auburn, #3 Alabama*, #4 Michigan State, #5 Stanford, #6 Baylor
Play-in Games:
#8 Missouri-#7 Ohio State
#20 Fresno State-#15 UCF

#23 Northern Illinois (12-1) misses playoff due to conference championship upset and 3rd G5 champion
#13 Oklahoma State misses playoff due to Week 15 upset in de facto Big 12 Championship
#7 Ohio State drops to play-in game due to conference championship upset
#9 South Carolina because of Ohio State loss dropped out of playoff

(04-23-2021 01:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  That's one reason I think 5-1-2 won't pass. As I've explained, had 5-1-2 been in effect the past seven years of the CFP, AAC teams like UCF, Cincy, Memphis and Houston would have more trips to the playoffs than nearby SEC and other P5 such as Florida, Kentucky, FSU, Miami, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Tennessee and Texas.

The AAC stands the most to benefit from 5-1-2, and the AAC is mostly in the footprint of the SEC and ACC, and also Texas, which brings Texas in to play. I doubt they want that. As for the B1G, under 5-1-2 Western Michigan would have more playoff trips than Michigan. In 2019, Wisconsin would have missed the playoffs to make room for Memphis

A 5-1-2 model would IMO greatly enhance the relative stature of the AAC, and often at the expense of the SEC and Texas. Does Texas want little brothers like Houston and SMU being able to make the playoffs beating out just other G5 teams - most years just winning the AAC - while they have to get past Oklahoma every year? Does Florida want UCF going to the playoffs twice in three years for beating out Memphis and Cincy while they have to tangle with LSU, Alabama etc.?

Probably not, IMO.

Most years of the CFP, the team that would get booted out of an 8-team playoff had it been "straight 8" or "5+3" to make room for a G5 team would have been an SEC or B1G team. I think they are likely to be aware of that.

This is another reason why a 5-2-1 is more likely if there is a play-in game for the "1", since by spreading the benefit of the "1" more, it dilutes the benefit to the AAC. It also means that no Go5 CCG is ever a "for practical purposes play-in game to the CFP", so maintains the status of A5 CCG over Go5 CCG.

And, of course, the incremental upgrades in access the Go5 has gained over time, from the start of the BCS system, have been gained by working together. By spreading the benefit around, it also provides more encouragement to the Go5 to continue to work together.

A kind of "reducing the downsides" appeal of the play-in format for media partners is it reduces the audience impact on the CFP of the "1", because many more people will watch the play-in game than would have watched the contenders regular season games or Go5 CCG's, and the "1" will automatically come into the CFP having won in front of what is likely it's biggest audience of the season.

And of course, it does further open the door for prospective media partners to lobby to have the play-in between the number one ranked Go5 school and the highest ranked among remaining Go5 champions and independents not picked for an at-large spot.

Yeah a straight 8 is the big competitor. The B1G and SEC would be virtual locks for 2 bids with the other three P5 getting 1 bid and the last one up for whomever is strong that year.

I am pretty sure in 2018 the CFP would have moved UW ahead of UCF for the 8th spot if it were straight 8. The money is not going to a G5 conference.

5 P5 champs
the G5 highest ranked
2 at-large's

(04-25-2021 11:15 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 01:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  That's one reason I think 5-1-2 won't pass. As I've explained, had 5-1-2 been in effect the past seven years of the CFP, AAC teams like UCF, Cincy, Memphis and Houston would have more trips to the playoffs than nearby SEC and other P5 such as Florida, Kentucky, FSU, Miami, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Tennessee and Texas.

The AAC stands the most to benefit from 5-1-2, and the AAC is mostly in the footprint of the SEC and ACC, and also Texas, which brings Texas in to play. I doubt they want that. As for the B1G, under 5-1-2 Western Michigan would have more playoff trips than Michigan. In 2019, Wisconsin would have missed the playoffs to make room for Memphis

A 5-1-2 model would IMO greatly enhance the relative stature of the AAC, and often at the expense of the SEC and Texas. Does Texas want little brothers like Houston and SMU being able to make the playoffs beating out just other G5 teams - most years just winning the AAC - while they have to get past Oklahoma every year? Does Florida want UCF going to the playoffs twice in three years for beating out Memphis and Cincy while they have to tangle with LSU, Alabama etc.?

Probably not, IMO.

Most years of the CFP, the team that would get booted out of an 8-team playoff had it been "straight 8" or "5+3" to make room for a G5 team would have been an SEC or B1G team. I think they are likely to be aware of that.

This is another reason why a 5-2-1 is more likely if there is a play-in game for the "1", since by spreading the benefit of the "1" more, it dilutes the benefit to the AAC. It also means that no Go5 CCG is ever a "for practical purposes play-in game to the CFP", so maintains the status of A5 CCG over Go5 CCG.

And, of course, the incremental upgrades in access the Go5 has gained over time, from the start of the BCS system, have been gained by working together. By spreading the benefit around, it also provides more encouragement to the Go5 to continue to work together.

A kind of "reducing the downsides" appeal of the play-in format for media partners is it reduces the audience impact on the CFP of the "1", because many more people will watch the play-in game than would have watched the contenders regular season games or Go5 CCG's, and the "1" will automatically come into the CFP having won in front of what is likely it's biggest audience of the season.

And of course, it does further open the door for prospective media partners to lobby to have the play-in between the number one ranked Go5 school and the highest ranked among remaining Go5 champions and independents not picked for an at-large spot.

I prefer straight 8, but I agree that a G5 play-in game would make 5-1-2 for the G5 more palatable to the P5.

What might make it even more palatable is if the play-in game were between the top G5 champ and the highest-ranked team that they would otherwise replace, which in all likelihood would be a P5 team. Meaning if we had this scenario as the top 8 ...

Alabama
Clemson
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Georgia
Wisconsin
USC
Florida

... and then top-rated G5 team was #13 Memphis, Florida would play Memphis as a play-in game. This not only gives one of the P5 another chance to get a team in, it also addresses a concern P5 have with a G5 autobid, that a G5 could get that spot without ever having proven themselves against a top P5 team. Win that play-in game, and you have done so.

You could have NY6 with 12 slots as the first round.

All P5's then would have a rep you could give slots to the 2 highest G5 champs. That would open up 5 at-large bids. That way bowls are still relevant and a nice reward.

Second round then is bye for the two highest ranked CFP teams. Then semifinals the next week and finals the week after, all on Monday nights. That way you reward the two highest CFP schools that win their bowl games with a bye since the argument of weaker competition playing a #7 or #8 seed isn't really there like it is in basketball where a #16 team is only an average D1 basketball team.

Jan 1

Rose Bowl: big 10 champ vs pac 12 champ
Sugar Bowl: SEC champ vs Big 12 champ
Orange bowl: ACC vs highest ranked at large

Week or so later

4 team playoff at 1 site ( rotate Dallas, Phoenix, Atlanta, Indy) with 3 auto bids to rose, sugar and orange bowl winners and 1 at large team who must have won a bowl game

Another week or so later, mid January

Title game in Vegas

A plan without 10 autobids is *not* all inclusive full stop.

(04-26-2021 02:06 PM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  A plan without 10 autobids is *not* all inclusive full stop.

How many G5 champs realistically stand a chance at upsetting a top 8 team?

The P5 aren’t going to want these games and neither are the networks because blowouts make for bad tv ratings.

(04-26-2021 02:11 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 02:06 PM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  A plan without 10 autobids is *not* all inclusive full stop.

How many G5 champs realistically stand a chance at upsetting a top 8 team?

The P5 aren’t going to want these games and neither are the networks because blowouts make for bad tv ratings.

All of them stand a realistic chance. That's why games are played in the first place.

I thought the entire premise of a "college football playoff" was to decide things ON THE FIELD, rather than let AP and UPI decide "who's number one" because "we already know who'd win that game."

Who ever thought that the first-year expansion Vegas Knights would contend for the Stanley Cup? Yet there they were. No one disqualified them at the beginning of the season as not having a realistic chance, or because they weren't around as long or invested as much over the years as the other NHL teams.

(04-26-2021 05:07 PM)NJMark Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 02:11 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 02:06 PM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  A plan without 10 autobids is *not* all inclusive full stop.

How many G5 champs realistically stand a chance at upsetting a top 8 team?

The P5 aren’t going to want these games and neither are the networks because blowouts make for bad tv ratings.

All of them stand a realistic chance. That's why games are played in the first place.

I thought the entire premise of a "college football playoff" was to decide things ON THE FIELD, rather than let AP and UPI decide "who's number one" because "we already know who'd win that game."

Who ever thought that the first-year expansion Vegas Knights would contend for the Stanley Cup? Yet there they were. No one disqualified them at the beginning of the season as not having a realistic chance, or because they weren't around as long or invested as much over the years as the other NHL teams.

NHL franchises are all structurally equal. That's obviously not the case in college football.

If you are going to put a G5 team in the playoffs, might as well include the FCS champ too.

(04-26-2021 05:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 05:07 PM)NJMark Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 02:11 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 02:06 PM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  A plan without 10 autobids is *not* all inclusive full stop.

How many G5 champs realistically stand a chance at upsetting a top 8 team?

The P5 aren’t going to want these games and neither are the networks because blowouts make for bad tv ratings.

All of them stand a realistic chance. That's why games are played in the first place.

I thought the entire premise of a "college football playoff" was to decide things ON THE FIELD, rather than let AP and UPI decide "who's number one" because "we already know who'd win that game."

Who ever thought that the first-year expansion Vegas Knights would contend for the Stanley Cup? Yet there they were. No one disqualified them at the beginning of the season as not having a realistic chance, or because they weren't around as long or invested as much over the years as the other NHL teams.

NHL franchises are all structurally equal. That's obviously not the case in college football.

If you are going to put a G5 team in the playoffs, might as well include the FCS champ too.

Now you're just being ridiculous. At least the basic rules in terms of recruiting, scholarships, coaches, etc. are the same for all FBS schools. FCS schools do not play by the same rules. You're just trying to bait people to argue your false equivalencies here.

USFFan

(04-26-2021 02:06 PM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  A plan without 10 autobids is *not* all inclusive full stop.

Umm... the initial post here actually included 10 autobids. The primary difference was that not all of the autobids were equal in terms of where teams entered the competition.

In that way, it's not unlike the Champions League. You know, the league that all of European soccer fans just fought for, since it truly is inclusive. Each year in the Champions League, the top team from EVERY SINGLE European country (as determined by each country's top tier league) is entered into the Champions League. So the first round next year will include teams from Kosovo, San Marino, Andorra and Northern Ireland. The champions from England, Germany, France, Spain and Italy won't enter until the 6th round.

In my proposal, there would be 3 rounds before the college football equivalents of Bayern Munich, PSG and Barcelona enter the playoff.

USFFan

(04-26-2021 02:06 PM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  A plan without 10 autobids is *not* all inclusive full stop.

However the A5 and media partners would be perfectly happy with it effectively completely locking out half of FBS schools ... the question for them is whether the system is "inclusive enough" to avoid the risk of anti-trust action in particular, and political grandstanding by pollies with excluded constituencies that mar the media value of the CFP brand.

The media partners will want guaranteed spots for the A5 champions because it boosts the media value of the CCG contracts they already have.

An "all inclusive" play-in system would be the five Go5 champions and the remaining highest ranked non-A5 teams playing three "play-in" games on Army-Navy game day, then playing the three A5 at-larges the following week, seeded by ranking, hosted by the higher ranked school. That does the double trick of boosting the (much more modest) media value of the Go5 CCG's without undermining the brand value of winning a P5 CCG.

But giving the Go5 champions a six game path to the national championship (including the CCG) is going to get a lot of pushback, including within the NCAA regarding the number of games played by college football players, and the media value of the first stage games, which is a play-in for a play-in, and with three match-ups to choose from for those for whom two games on the day (including Army-Navy) suffice, would be substantially less certain. If there are only two FBS games on Army-Navy gameday, the second game is going to have a much better guaranteed floor audience of "must see football" viewers.

A Go5 best champion hosting the remaining highest ranked non-at-large and non-P5 for a spot is pro-forma inclusive as it provides each school with one guaranteed spot it is vying for and two at-large spots that formally everyone is vying for. It generates a bit more "bracket" interest in Go5 CCG's, than the NY6 chase, since in most years more CCG's will include a potential claimant for the one OR two spot, and the prize is a bigger prize. And it would certainly get strong buy-in from the Go5, and strong buy in from the Go5 means no anti-trust challenge and almost no risk of other activity that mars the brand value of the CFP.

I have never understood any of the solutions that don’t involve multiples of four?

I get an eight-team playoff and I get a 16-team playoff too. I understood four at first as well, but it is clear that the current four-team playoff is choking the rest of the sport because the same five or six teams are always in the playoff.

I do not understand the proposals that involve bye weeks or uneven numbers. Those seem like ludicrous suggestions to me.

This does not have to be complicated. Let’s start with an eight-team playoff — with automatic bids for the power conference champions — and go from there. If that’s still not enough, we can go to 16 teams.

I am not in favor of replacing one oddball system with another that involves bye weeks and yet more committees and which has 10 teams or 12 teams or 7.5 teams. Let’s not do that. For once, let’s follow some common sense principles here.

Personally, I’ve never really cared how big the playoff is. I think that is secondary to how the teams are selected. I think teams should be selected through objective accomplishment rather than through subjective evaluation — as much as possible. Unfortunately, given the size and scope of college football, I’m not sure that we can ever completely get rid of all of the subjectivity. However, this would certainly be a major step in the right direction.

(04-26-2021 08:42 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 05:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 05:07 PM)NJMark Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 02:11 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 02:06 PM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  A plan without 10 autobids is *not* all inclusive full stop.

How many G5 champs realistically stand a chance at upsetting a top 8 team?

The P5 aren’t going to want these games and neither are the networks because blowouts make for bad tv ratings.

All of them stand a realistic chance. That's why games are played in the first place.

I thought the entire premise of a "college football playoff" was to decide things ON THE FIELD, rather than let AP and UPI decide "who's number one" because "we already know who'd win that game."

Who ever thought that the first-year expansion Vegas Knights would contend for the Stanley Cup? Yet there they were. No one disqualified them at the beginning of the season as not having a realistic chance, or because they weren't around as long or invested as much over the years as the other NHL teams.

NHL franchises are all structurally equal. That's obviously not the case in college football.

If you are going to put a G5 team in the playoffs, might as well include the FCS champ too.

Now you're just being ridiculous. At least the basic rules in terms of recruiting, scholarships, coaches, etc. are the same for all FBS schools. FCS schools do not play by the same rules. You're just trying to bait people to argue your false equivalencies here.

USFFan

Nah, the unrealistic thing was the poster who compared the NHL to college football. Pro sports franchises are all the same. There are quite a few FBS schools that aren't as good as the best FCS schools. Much more actual overlap there.

There's much more of a gap between LSU and ECU than between ECU and James Madison.

(04-26-2021 09:22 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 02:06 PM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  A plan without 10 autobids is *not* all inclusive full stop.

However the A5 and media partners would be perfectly happy with it effectively completely locking out half of FBS schools ... the question for them is whether the system is "inclusive enough" to avoid the risk of anti-trust action in particular, and political grandstanding by pollies with excluded constituencies that mar the media value of the CFP brand.

The media partners will want guaranteed spots for the A5 champions because it boosts the media value of the CCG contracts they already have.

An "all inclusive" play-in system would be the five Go5 champions and the remaining highest ranked non-A5 teams playing three "play-in" games on Army-Navy game day, then playing the three A5 at-larges the following week, seeded by ranking, hosted by the higher ranked school. That does the double trick of boosting the (much more modest) media value of the Go5 CCG's without undermining the brand value of winning a P5 CCG.

But giving the Go5 champions a six game path to the national championship (including the CCG) is going to get a lot of pushback, including within the NCAA regarding the number of games played by college football players, and the media value of the first stage games, which is a play-in for a play-in, and with three match-ups to choose from for those for whom two games on the day (including Army-Navy) suffice, would be substantially less certain. If there are only two FBS games on Army-Navy gameday, the second game is going to have a much better guaranteed floor audience of "must see football" viewers.

A Go5 best champion hosting the remaining highest ranked non-at-large and non-P5 for a spot is pro-forma inclusive as it provides each school with one guaranteed spot it is vying for and two at-large spots that formally everyone is vying for. It generates a bit more "bracket" interest in Go5 CCG's, than the NY6 chase, since in most years more CCG's will include a potential claimant for the one OR two spot, and the prize is a bigger prize. And it would certainly get strong buy-in from the Go5, and strong buy in from the Go5 means no anti-trust challenge and almost no risk of other activity that mars the brand value of the CFP.

IMO, the main competitive knock against a G5 autobid is that the champ will almost surely not have proven themselves against a top-10 level opponent. P5 are not going to want a G5 team to cruise in to the playoffs having faced nothing but other G5 and maybe some lower-tier P5. No P5 can get in that way.

So if we have to have autobids, have the top G5 team, if ranked outside the top 8, have a play-in against the highest-rated outside the top 8 P5 team for that 8th position.

I also believe that the more the playoff expands the more that is going to kill the bowl system. I know some people see that as a negative thing but I’m not among them.

Personally, I’m just fine with that. I think the bowls have long held back college football. There’s two or three that actually help college football and then there’s like 35 more that really don’t do anything for the sport one way or the other.

However, if we have learned anything through the playoff era to date it is that you can have a playoff system or a bowl system but probably not both.

The moment they implemented a four-team playoff, going to the Rose Bowl or the Sugar Bowl or the Orange Bowl no longer mattered as much as they did before because they were no longer the measuring stick for a successful season.

That feeling is only going to grow if/when the playoff expands. Hell, that feeling is probably going to grow even if the playoffs stays at four teams.

I look at bowl games the same way that I look at the newspaper industry and the butcher shop. I wish they’d all stay around forever because I’m getting older and they are vestiges of my youth. However, they are also relics of a bygone era and the sooner we accept that reality, the better off everyone will be.

(04-26-2021 09:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, the main competitive knock against a G5 autobid is that the champ will almost surely not have proven themselves against a top-10 level opponent. P5 are not going to want a G5 team to cruise in to the playoffs having faced nothing but other G5 and maybe some lower-tier P5. No P5 can get in that way.

I dunno, I could see the SEC figuring they'll have the number one seed more often than not and rather face the winner of a Go5 play-in game than a P5 at-large in the quarterfinals. After all, the SEC is a conference that plays the maximum allowed number of FCS games, and not all in September, either, so the SEC is well aware of the prospective advantages.

(04-27-2021 07:22 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 09:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, the main competitive knock against a G5 autobid is that the champ will almost surely not have proven themselves against a top-10 level opponent. P5 are not going to want a G5 team to cruise in to the playoffs having faced nothing but other G5 and maybe some lower-tier P5. No P5 can get in that way.

I dunno, I could see the SEC figuring they'll have the number one seed more often than not and rather face the winner of a Go5 play-in game than a P5 at-large in the quarterfinals. After all, the SEC is a conference that plays the maximum allowed number of FCS games, and not all in September, either, so the SEC is well aware of the prospective advantages.

IMO, the SEC would much prefer a play-in game between the top G5 and the next-best P5, as that next-best P5 could very well be an SEC team. Ditto for the B1G. I think that would outweigh what you are talking about.