.

Most college football fans agree that the CFP has become less and less interesting, due to the limited number of teams that have played in it.

Fortunately, there is no need to have only one post-season playoff for the 130 FBS teams, and why should there be, when there are four different (NCAA, NIT, CBI, CIT) post-season tournaments for the 300+ D1 basketball teams?

An alternative University Football Tournament could be established: (1) For the immense amount of revenue that it would generate, (2) to give a chance for a much wider variety of teams to compete in the post-season, and (3) due to the nearly insatiable American appetite for college football.

Consider these facts:

I: There has never been a G5 or FBS independent in the CFP, and there isn't likely to be as long as the CFP is a 4-team playoff.

II: There are currently no plans to expand the CFP, and there are no clear indications that there will be a CFP expansion in the near future.

III: In order to remedy this situation, the G5 and FBS independent schools need to do whatever they can to improve their situation.

IV: One of the best ways that they could improve their situation would be to sponsor an alternative post-season football tournament.

.

It would start out as an 8-team tournament, with the possibility of being expanded to 16 teams.

The 8 teams would be selected based on the AP, Coaches Poll, and Massey Composite rankings, with the CFP rankings being disregarded.

Most, if not all of the teams in the tournament would be well-known teams that have appeared in the AP Top 25 or the Coaches Poll.

The main purpose of the tournament would be to provide an opportunity for a wider spectrum of teams to play in the post-season:

Selection Criteria:

#1: The 4 most-highly ranked G5 and FBS independent teams and at least two ranked P5 teams would be invited.

#2: The most highly-ranked team (or teams) from any P5 conferences that do not have a team in the CFP would be invited.

#3: The nation's most highly-ranked AAU team that was not invited to compete in the CFP would be invited.

#4: If criteria #2 and #3 do not provide at least two P5 teams, the most highly-ranked P5 team that wasn't invited to compete in the CFP would be invited.

#4: The remaining invitations would go to the ranked teams with the highest regular-season winning percentages.

......................................................................................................

If such a tournament would have been played after the 2020 season, the invited teams would have included (regular season records are listed):

1. Cincinnati (9-0; #1 ranked G5/FBS independent team)
2. BYU (10-1; #2 ranked G5/FBS independent team)
3. Coastal Carolina (11-0; #3 ranked G5/FBS independent team)
4. Louisiana (9-1; #4 ranked G5/FBS independent team)
5. Texas A&M (8-1; representing the Big-12, which had no CFP team)
6. USC (5-1; top AAU team; representing PAC-12, which had no CFP team)
7. San Jose St. (ranked team with 7-0 regular season record)
8. Liberty (ranked team with 9-1 regular season record)

Round 1 (if these teams were seeded according to AP rankings):

Texas A&M (8-1) vs. Liberty (9-1)
Cincinnati (9-0) vs. USC (5-1)
Coastal Carolina (11-0) vs. San Jose State (7-0)
BYU (10-1) vs. Louisiana (9-1)

Round 2 (if the highest-seeded teams won their first round games):

Texas A&M (8-1) vs. BYU (10-1)
Cincinnati (9-0) vs. Coastal Carolina (11-0)

UFT Championship Game potential high-viewership match-ups:

Texas A&M vs. Cincinnati
Cincinnati vs. BYU

......................................................................................................

If such a tournament would have been played after the 2019 season, the invited teams would have included (regular season records are listed):

1. Memphis (12-1; #1 ranked G5/FBS independent team)
2. Boise St. (12-1; #2 ranked G5/FBS independent team)
3. App St. (12-1; #3 ranked G5/FBS independent team)
4. Navy (9-2; #4 ranked G5/FBS independent team)
5. Oregon (11-2; top AAU team; representing PAC-12 (no CFP team))
6. Georgia (11-2; top-ranked P5 team not invited to play in the CFP)
7. Baylor (ranked team with 11-2 regular season record)
8. Utah (ranked team with 11-2 regular season record)

Round 1 (if these teams were seeded according to AP rankings):

Georgia vs. Navy
Oregon vs. App. State
Baylor vs. Boise State
Utah vs. Memphis

Round 2 (if the highest-seeded teams won their first round games):

Georgia (11-2) vs. Utah (11-2)
Oregon (11-2) vs. Baylor (11-2)

UFT Championship Game potential high-viewership match-ups:

Georgia vs. Baylor
Georgia vs. Oregon
Oregon vs. Utah
Baylor vs. Utah


......................................................................................................

.

.

Benefits:

The addition of these 7 post-season tournament games would extend the bowl season by a couple of weeks, thus preventing millions of American college football fans from going "cold turkey" in mid-January and would be a welcome distraction from the mid-winter blues.

The viewership would generate additional revenue for the conferences with teams in the tournament.

The participating teams would get a boost in stature and recognition, which would assist with recruiting.

The G5 conferences and FBS independent schools would remain relevant - - rather than dropping out of sight as they currently do - - during the month of January.

Risks:

None.

.

.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Huh?

NOOOOOOO... You are leaving the current pie entirely to half of the FBS.

What part of "Inclusion" do you not understand?

Any playoff system should grant equal access to all FBS members, no special treatment, if if the requirements is Conference Champs then it should be all 12 Conference champs plus 4 at large to accommodate the Indecent Universities, if the requirements is for a Comity to select at large the all Conference nd each Indecent University get an equal vote....

Anything else is open to antitrust law suit.

Notre Dame has been in the CFP twice I believe, and I also believe they are an independent.
I do not want to help the P5 superiority complex by establishing a lower tier tournament. I have always advocated for a 16 team CFB playoff with the 10 conference champs and 6 at large. The FCS currently has a 24 team playoff, if they can do it so can FBS. The biggest obstacle is the piggy minds of the elitist schools like Alabama, Ohio State, and Texas. IMO this playoff would produce higher interest in college football across a wider array of schools and subsequently potential fans. My evidence is the interest of casual or even non-fans in the NCAA basketball tournament.

Danger Will Robinson, Danger.

While I kind of like throwing those thoughts out there to digest and speculate about... Kind of fun, like some of these other people are saying, You really end up separating your self from the P5. I know, you are planning to include them, and if they are smart they will participate to help create this scenario, then in 10 years time they just say we are not going to participate any more. Boom... Now you have two separated divisions.

Who’s going to pay for it?

Why would P5s want to play in this? They can make a lot more money playing another ranked P5 in the Capital One/Gator/Alamo etc. Losing to a G5 in this, even a good one, would be a huge embarrassment that no coach or AD would want to take.

The more sensible thing to do would be to get a few bowls lined up in a deal so the best G5s not picked for the NY6 or presented an opportunity to face a P5 in a bowl, are guaranteed a shot to play one of the best G5s available. The MWC and AAC seem to have no trouble getting decent bowls but this would be a big help for the MAC, C-USA, and SBC.

.

Considering the fact that the existing CFP system is so fundamentally flawed that viewership has actually started to decline, it's entirely possible that an 8- or 16-team alternative post-season FB tournament could generate more unique (i.e., above & beyond the existing bowl system) viewership revenue than the CFP.

Q: How would that be possible?

A: It would be possible and in fact quite likely because there would be so many more tournament (than CFP) games.

An 8-team "UFT" type of tournament would involve playing 7 more games, whereas the CFP just involves one game after the field of 4 teams is narrowed to 2 teams in the NY6 bowls.

If the tournament field is strong enough, it wouldn't be hard to generate more viewership/revenue from 7 tournament games than the CFP generates in its one unique game (the NY6 bowl games are not unique to the CFP, since they existed long before the CFP did.

.

However, the idea of setting up an alternative to the CFP playoff system wouldn't necessarily be to do so permanently.

After a few seasons, if a tournament were to generate equal or greater viewership, it could force the powers-that-be to redesign and expand the CFP in a way that it would considered satisfactory by the G5 and FBS independent schools.

At that point, the football tournament would have served its purpose and would no longer be considered necessary.

Either way, we would be better off than we are today.

.

Cool like the FCS Playoffs ....



Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(05-01-2021 10:38 AM)4xGrad Wrote:  Danger Will Robinson, Danger.

While I kind of like throwing those thoughts out there to digest and speculate about... Kind of fun, like some of these other people are saying,

I'm glad that you picked up on the fact that this thread was started up mainly to stimulate an interesting/fun conversation that might lead to something positive.

(05-01-2021 10:38 AM)4xGrad Wrote:  I know, you are planning to include them, and if they are smart they will participate to help create this scenario, then in 10 years time they just say we are not going to participate any more.

I don't think such an outcome would be very likely, since the proposed tournament would give a number of P5 teams that might not be very likely to play in the CFP a unique and remunerative opportunity to compete in and win an interesting post-season tournament.

The only way the powers-that-be could persuade the tournament-quality P5 teams to reject an invitation to play in an alternative tournament would be to provide them a strong enough reason not to accept an invitation (e.g., by expanding the CFP or by literally paying them not to play in the tournament).*

Option A: They could expand the CFP. However, they probably couldn't do so without opening up the CFP to G5/FBS independent teams, and that alone might make the alternative tournament a success, since one of its major objectives would be to force the CFP to expand.

--It would be difficult to expand the CFP to 8 teams without opening up the CFP to G5/FBS independents, since any measures blocking G5 teams would constitute a violation of U.S. anti-trust law.

Option B: If they were to simply "pay" the best P5 teams not to participate in the tournament, then the tournament could simply respond by inviting the next best P5 teams to play in the tournament.

--Since there would be at least a dozen P5 teams that could generate high viewership, the tournament could be successful even if the best available P5 teams were to turn down an invitation.

For example:

If the P5 were to literally pay Texas A&M and USC $1 million apiece not to accept an invitation to play in a hypothetical 2020 football tournament, the tournament committee could respond by inviting the next best PAC-12 and Big-12 teams, which would be (#8) Oklahoma and (#25) Oregon.

If Oklahoma were to turn down the invitation to represent the Big 12, then (#12) Iowa State could be invited, followed by (#20) Texas, etc. If no Big 12 teams would accept tournament invitations, then invitations could be sent to (#7) Indiana, (#14) UNC, (#15) Northwestern, etc. until at least two P5 teams would agree to play in the tournament.

At ~ $1 million a pop, the P5 would have to shell out multiple millions of dollars per year to pay off all the schools that would receive invitations to play in the tourney. That would be enough of a sacrifice to discourage them from attempting to pay schools not to play in the tourney.

......................................................................................................

*Option B might be not a viable option, since any attempt to drive the football tournament out of business by paying schools not to play would be a prima facie violation of U.S. anti-trust laws.

......................................................................................................

In summary,

An alternative post-season football tournament would provide a strong incentive for an expansion of the CFP to at least 8 teams.

Any attempt by the CFP/P5 to bribe, extort or cajole P5 schools into rejecting an invitation to play in an alternative tournament or to expand the CFP without permitting G5/FBS independents to participate could be over-ruled by the courts, since they would violate U.S. anti-trust laws.

Thus, a post-season football tournament could succeed in forcing the CFP to expand and to make provisions enabling non-P5 teams to participate.

Depending on tournament viewership and their level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the terms of the expanded CFP, the G5 conferences and FBS independents could decide whether or not to continue to sponsor an annual post-season tournament.

.

UFT? Ugh, F**k That!

HELL NO