I expect any CFP expansion that includes auto bids for all of the P5 conferences to also include at least one auto bid for the G5.

The reason I think the P5 will go along with this is that they understand their relationship with the G5 is symbiotic. The money gap between the two gives P5 schools the ability to buy and G5 schools the incentive to supply a large number of OOC games hosted in P5 stadiums. That in turn makes it possible for nearly all P5 teams to play 7 home games and only 5 road games per season, whereas almost all G5 teams have to play 6 and 6. Home field advantage is such a significant factor in college football that this scheduling disparity alone virtually ensures that a majority of P5 teams will attain .500 or better records and earn bowl berths, keeping their fans satisfied and bolstering TV ratings.

The P5 would be putting this symbiotic relationship at risk if they demanded guaranteed CFP auto bids for all of their champions without granting the G5 even one. Some folks may believe the G5’s tolerance for second-class citizenship is unlimited so long as the P5 keeps trickling down buy game fees plus a small share of CFP money, but I think trying to monopolize CFP auto bids would break the camel’s back. It would be too egregiously exclusionary for the G5 to accept and could very well trigger threats of conference-level buy game scheduling boycotts that would force many or most P5 teams to face the prospect of playing 6 home and 6 away games per season. If that happened I would expect the P5 to blink.

Side note: This is probably obvious to most, but responding to a G5 boycott of buy games by substituting FCS buy games wouldn’t work for the P5. This is because the total number of home games played by all P5 teams has to equal the total number of away games played by all P5 teams. So if P5 teams wanted to keep playing 7 home and 5 away schedules, they would each have to buy 2 home games per season against FCS opponents, which in turn would reduce each team’s number of games counting toward bowl eligibility from 12 to 11 and would hurt home game ticket sales and TV ratings. Alternatively some P5 teams could buy home games from FBS independents, but the supply would be relatively limited as independent teams need to balance their home and away schedules too.

(05-17-2021 03:50 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I expect any CFP expansion that includes auto bids for all of the P5 conferences to also include at least one auto bid for the G5.

The reason I think the P5 will go along with this is that they understand their relationship with the G5 is symbiotic. The money gap between the two gives P5 schools the ability to buy and G5 schools the incentive to supply a large number of OOC games hosted in P5 stadiums. That in turn makes it possible for nearly all P5 teams to play 7 home games and only 5 road games per season, whereas almost all G5 teams have to play 6 and 6. Home field advantage is such a significant factor in college football that this scheduling disparity alone virtually ensures that a majority of P5 teams will attain .500 or better records and earn bowl berths, keeping their fans satisfied and bolstering TV ratings.

The P5 would be putting this symbiotic relationship at risk if they demanded guaranteed CFP auto bids for all of their champions without granting the G5 even one. Some folks may believe the G5’s tolerance for second-class citizenship is unlimited so long as the P5 keeps trickling down buy game fees plus a small share of CFP money, but I think trying to monopolize CFP auto bids would break the camel’s back. It would be too egregiously exclusionary for the G5 to accept and could very well trigger threats of conference-level buy game scheduling boycotts that would force many or most P5 teams to face the prospect of playing 6 home and 6 away games per season. If that happened I would expect the P5 to blink.

Side note: This is probably obvious to most, but responding to a G5 boycott of buy games by substituting FCS buy games wouldn’t work for the P5. This is because the total number of home games played by all P5 teams has to equal the total number of away games played by all P5 teams. So if P5 teams wanted to keep playing 7 home and 5 away schedules, they would each have to buy 2 home games per season against FCS opponents, which in turn would reduce each team’s number of games counting toward bowl eligibility from 12 to 11 and would hurt home game ticket sales and TV ratings. Alternatively some P5 teams could buy home games from FBS independents, but the supply would be relatively limited as independent teams need to balance their home and away schedules too.

Some thoughts:

1) If P5 get autobids in an expanded playoffs but there is nothing for the G5, I think a boycott of buy games by G5 would be unlikely, because they need the money.

2) I think that if a boycott happened, and the P5 had to buy more FCS games, the P5 would pressure the NCAA, and successfully so, for a temporary waiver of the "games counting towards eligibility" rule.

3) I think the main risk to the P5 of having autobids for themselves but nothing for the G5 are (a) threat of G5 lawsuit and, to a much lesser degree, (b) public perception of fairness.

4) But still, even if we have a G5 autobid, both lawsuits and perceptions of unfairness are likely, because this makes the G5 formally second-class. Straight eight doesn't have those problems.

5) I am not sure all G5 want a general G5 autobid. Because that bid is likely to be dominated by the AAC, which would harm the other G conferences, some may say "we should all have our own autobid, or else none for anyone".

We shall see.

(05-15-2021 03:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  BTW, I'm not sure autobids would increase the CCG value for everyone. The SEC and B1G title games already garner very large ratings, hard to see them increasing much. But other conferences that currently struggle to attract viewers? Yes.

Well, I don't see it being a play-in game changing MY likelihood of watching the SEC CCG when I get back to the US ... which is close to nil so long as the Vols aren't going to be there ... so I will defer to people who are in closer touch with the SEC potential audience regarding the SEC CCG, but even for the Big 10, the certainty of being a play in for the CFP adds value. In percentage terms, the value add is greater for the other three, but I believe it is definitely there for the Big 10.

But the SEC seems like the closest thing to a lock in having two bites of the apple in a 5-1-2, so if a 5-1-2 was the only thing that there were votes for ... that is, if there were swing NCAA voters on one versus two additional championship games ... I am not so confident that they would turn it down.

(05-17-2021 08:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Some thoughts:

1) If P5 get autobids in an expanded playoffs but there is nothing for the G5, I think a boycott of buy games by G5 would be unlikely, because they need the money.

2) I think that if a boycott happened, and the P5 had to buy more FCS games, the P5 would pressure the NCAA, and successfully so, for a temporary waiver of the "games counting towards eligibility" rule.

3) I think the main risk to the P5 of having autobids for themselves but nothing for the G5 are (a) threat of G5 lawsuit and, to a much lesser degree, (b) public perception of fairness.

4) But still, even if we have a G5 autobid, both lawsuits and perceptions of unfairness are likely, because this makes the G5 formally second-class. Straight eight doesn't have those problems.

5) I am not sure all G5 want a general G5 autobid. Because that bid is likely to be dominated by the AAC, which would harm the other G conferences, some may say "we should all have our own autobid, or else none for anyone".

We shall see.

I discuss the issues of Straight 8 vs. 5-1-2 (autobid for G5) in more detail in this thread: https://csnbbs.com/thread-922104.html. quo vadis sums it up, not all of the G5's would agree.

(05-17-2021 09:06 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-15-2021 03:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  BTW, I'm not sure autobids would increase the CCG value for everyone. The SEC and B1G title games already garner very large ratings, hard to see them increasing much. But other conferences that currently struggle to attract viewers? Yes.

Well, I don't see it being a play-in game changing MY likelihood of watching the SEC CCG when I get back to the US ... which is close to nil so long as the Vols aren't going to be there ... so I will defer to people who are in closer touch with the SEC potential audience regarding the SEC CCG, but even for the Big 10, the certainty of being a play in for the CFP adds value. In percentage terms, the value add is greater for the other three, but I believe it is definitely there for the Big 10.

But the SEC seems like the closest thing to a lock in having two bites of the apple in a 5-1-2, so if a 5-1-2 was the only thing that there were votes for ... that is, if there were swing NCAA voters on one versus two additional championship games ... I am not so confident that they would turn it down.

I am not good at predicting what any entity will do, so I will decline to do so here.

But I can say what *I* would do if I was somehow the dictator of the SEC, and my choices were 5-1-2 or the current CFP.

Without hesitation, I would take the current CFP, even if 5-1-2 offered significantly more money. Because IMO, even if 5-1-2 means "more" for the SEC, it will likely benefit other conferences, P5 and G5, even more, and thus have a leveling effect that is to my detriment, as power and wealth are relative concepts.

It's like in a social sense, a person who has $5 million in a country where the average wealth is $50,000 is much more powerful than someone with $8 million but where the average wealth is $5 million.

IMO, if autobids are inevitable, the SEC should hold out for 5-1-6. The B1G should too. And let's face it - NCAA votes notwithstanding, nothing can get done without the SEC or B1G.

(05-17-2021 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I am not good at predicting what any entity will do, so I will decline to do so here.

But I can say what *I* would do if I was somehow the dictator of the SEC, and my choices were 5-1-2 or the current CFP.

Without hesitation, I would take the current CFP, even if 5-1-2 offered significantly more money. Because IMO, even if 5-1-2 means "more" for the SEC, it will likely benefit other conferences, P5 and G5, even more, and thus have a leveling effect that is to my detriment, as power and wealth are relative concepts.

It's like in a social sense, a person who has $5 million in a country where the average wealth is $50,000 is much more powerful than someone with $8 million but where the average wealth is $5 million.

IMO, if autobids are inevitable, the SEC should hold out for 5-1-6. The B1G should too. And let's face it - NCAA votes notwithstanding, nothing can get done without the SEC or B1G.

Now that's an interesting question, 5-1-2/straight 8 or status quo (keep 4 team playoff)? I'll assume no 12 team options.

From my other thread, consider who gains with the additional Playoff teams?

2014-2019:
SEC had 7 Playoff teams, ACC had 6 had Playoff teams, Big Ten had 4 Playoff teams, Big 12 had 4 Playoff teams, Pac 12 had 2 Playoff teams, Notre Dame had 1 Playoff team

In a 5-1-2 2014-2019:
Big 10 would have had 11 Playoff teams (+7), SEC would have had 10 (+3), Big 12 8 (+4), ACC 6 (No Gain), Pac 12 6 (+4), and AAC 4 (+4).

Interestingly the ACC actually is the worst off in an expansion but that's mainly because of the top heavy nature (Clemson is perennially a top 4 team and no one else is 5-8). The Big 10 has had by far the most teams in the 5-8 range and would gain the most by expansion (and if it were Straight 8, they'd gain an additional four teams). The SEC still gains some and they really wouldn't be that hurt. If you look at the rankings, is "Big 10 11, SEC 10" vs. "SEC 7, ACC 6" really that big a deal just because the SEC isn't "#1"?

The issue with an eight team playoff field from the SEC's standpoint is more teams means more chances for an upset and more teams that have a chance to win the national championship. If the SEC has a ton of teams in the top four, they don't need extra lottery tickets to win the national title, they're only giving other conferences extra chances to win national championships. In the seven years of the CFP, the SEC won four of seven national championships. In the seven years before that, they won six. The one Big Ten national championship in that span was because they were given an "extra lottery ticket" (#4 seeded Ohio State in 2014), they wouldn't have had in the BCS system). The Pac-12 was a playoff team 1/3 of the time in a 4 team Playoff field. They're always a playoff team in an 8 team Playoff field. Which would you rather have if you're the SEC? You can tell California recruits "Come to Alabama, Georgia, and Florida and you can play in the Playoff every year".

In a 5-1-2 or Straight 8, Ohio State would have made the Playoff all six years (seven if you counted 2020). Not even Alabama (2019) or Clemson (2014) could say that.

It seems a slight tweak toward payouts for performance would sate the Big Ten and SEC in any format (in every format, those 2 would combine for almost half of the playoff spots).

That tweak could either be shifting pay away from the base G5/P5 rates to per-team pay; or, it could be adding pay for a team playing an additional round. Yes, that introduces annual volatility, but they could smooth that out by copying the NCAAT model of spreading payments over X years.

Answer is no.

(05-17-2021 10:01 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(05-17-2021 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I am not good at predicting what any entity will do, so I will decline to do so here.

But I can say what *I* would do if I was somehow the dictator of the SEC, and my choices were 5-1-2 or the current CFP.

Without hesitation, I would take the current CFP, even if 5-1-2 offered significantly more money. Because IMO, even if 5-1-2 means "more" for the SEC, it will likely benefit other conferences, P5 and G5, even more, and thus have a leveling effect that is to my detriment, as power and wealth are relative concepts.

It's like in a social sense, a person who has $5 million in a country where the average wealth is $50,000 is much more powerful than someone with $8 million but where the average wealth is $5 million.

IMO, if autobids are inevitable, the SEC should hold out for 5-1-6. The B1G should too. And let's face it - NCAA votes notwithstanding, nothing can get done without the SEC or B1G.

Now that's an interesting question, 5-1-2/straight 8 or status quo (keep 4 team playoff)? I'll assume no 12 team options.

From my other thread, consider who gains with the additional Playoff teams?

2014-2019:
SEC had 7 Playoff teams, ACC had 6 had Playoff teams, Big Ten had 4 Playoff teams, Big 12 had 4 Playoff teams, Pac 12 had 2 Playoff teams, Notre Dame had 1 Playoff team

In a 5-1-2 2014-2019:
Big 10 would have had 11 Playoff teams (+7), SEC would have had 10 (+3), Big 12 8 (+4), ACC 6 (No Gain), Pac 12 6 (+4), and AAC 4 (+4).

Interestingly the ACC actually is the worst off in an expansion but that's mainly because of the top heavy nature (Clemson is perennially a top 4 team and no one else is 5-8). The Big 10 has had by far the most teams in the 5-8 range and would gain the most by expansion (and if it were Straight 8, they'd gain an additional four teams). The SEC still gains some and they really wouldn't be that hurt. If you look at the rankings, is "Big 10 11, SEC 10" vs. "SEC 7, ACC 6" really that big a deal just because the SEC isn't "#1"?

The issue with an eight team playoff field from the SEC's standpoint is more teams means more chances for an upset and more teams that have a chance to win the national championship. If the SEC has a ton of teams in the top four, they don't need extra lottery tickets to win the national title, they're only giving other conferences extra chances to win national championships. In the seven years of the CFP, the SEC won four of seven national championships. In the seven years before that, they won six. The one Big Ten national championship in that span was because they were given an "extra lottery ticket" (#4 seeded Ohio State in 2014), they wouldn't have had in the BCS system). The Pac-12 was a playoff team 1/3 of the time in a 4 team Playoff field. They're always a playoff team in an 8 team Playoff field. Which would you rather have if you're the SEC? You can tell California recruits "Come to Alabama, Georgia, and Florida and you can play in the Playoff every year".

In a 5-1-2 or Straight 8, Ohio State would have made the Playoff all six years (seven if you counted 2020). Not even Alabama (2019) or Clemson (2014) could say that.

Agree that an expansion to 8 does not appear to be in the ACC’s interest. For whatever reason, the ACC has had many years when one team dominates (e.g., Clemson recently and FSU in the 90s)...with these nationally relevant teams, a 4 team CFP is ideal. In the ACC down-period (2006-2011), the ACC would have required an auto bid to make the playoffs. The ACC seems better off in the current format; or possibly a minor expansion to only 6 teams with autobids for the P5 (something the AAC would oppose; and the B12, PAC and non-AAC G5 should embrace). Makes sense for Jim Phillips to tamp the brakes on the rush towards CFP expansion.

(05-17-2021 12:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-17-2021 10:01 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(05-17-2021 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I am not good at predicting what any entity will do, so I will decline to do so here.

But I can say what *I* would do if I was somehow the dictator of the SEC, and my choices were 5-1-2 or the current CFP.

Without hesitation, I would take the current CFP, even if 5-1-2 offered significantly more money. Because IMO, even if 5-1-2 means "more" for the SEC, it will likely benefit other conferences, P5 and G5, even more, and thus have a leveling effect that is to my detriment, as power and wealth are relative concepts.

It's like in a social sense, a person who has $5 million in a country where the average wealth is $50,000 is much more powerful than someone with $8 million but where the average wealth is $5 million.

IMO, if autobids are inevitable, the SEC should hold out for 5-1-6. The B1G should too. And let's face it - NCAA votes notwithstanding, nothing can get done without the SEC or B1G.

Now that's an interesting question, 5-1-2/straight 8 or status quo (keep 4 team playoff)? I'll assume no 12 team options.

From my other thread, consider who gains with the additional Playoff teams?

2014-2019:
SEC had 7 Playoff teams, ACC had 6 had Playoff teams, Big Ten had 4 Playoff teams, Big 12 had 4 Playoff teams, Pac 12 had 2 Playoff teams, Notre Dame had 1 Playoff team

In a 5-1-2 2014-2019:
Big 10 would have had 11 Playoff teams (+7), SEC would have had 10 (+3), Big 12 8 (+4), ACC 6 (No Gain), Pac 12 6 (+4), and AAC 4 (+4).

Interestingly the ACC actually is the worst off in an expansion but that's mainly because of the top heavy nature (Clemson is perennially a top 4 team and no one else is 5-8). The Big 10 has had by far the most teams in the 5-8 range and would gain the most by expansion (and if it were Straight 8, they'd gain an additional four teams). The SEC still gains some and they really wouldn't be that hurt. If you look at the rankings, is "Big 10 11, SEC 10" vs. "SEC 7, ACC 6" really that big a deal just because the SEC isn't "#1"?

The issue with an eight team playoff field from the SEC's standpoint is more teams means more chances for an upset and more teams that have a chance to win the national championship. If the SEC has a ton of teams in the top four, they don't need extra lottery tickets to win the national title, they're only giving other conferences extra chances to win national championships. In the seven years of the CFP, the SEC won four of seven national championships. In the seven years before that, they won six. The one Big Ten national championship in that span was because they were given an "extra lottery ticket" (#4 seeded Ohio State in 2014), they wouldn't have had in the BCS system). The Pac-12 was a playoff team 1/3 of the time in a 4 team Playoff field. They're always a playoff team in an 8 team Playoff field. Which would you rather have if you're the SEC? You can tell California recruits "Come to Alabama, Georgia, and Florida and you can play in the Playoff every year".

In a 5-1-2 or Straight 8, Ohio State would have made the Playoff all six years (seven if you counted 2020). Not even Alabama (2019) or Clemson (2014) could say that.

Agree that an expansion to 8 does not appear to be in the ACC’s interest. For whatever reason, the ACC has had many years when one team dominates (e.g., Clemson recently and FSU in the 90s)...with these nationally relevant teams, a 4 team CFP is ideal. In the ACC down-period (2006-2011), the ACC would have required an auto bid to make the playoffs. The ACC seems better off in the current format; or possibly a minor expansion to only 6 teams with autobids for the P5 (something the AAC would oppose; and the B12, PAC and non-AAC G5 should embrace). Makes sense for Jim Phillips to tamp the brakes on the rush towards CFP expansion.

Yes, we're seeing statements from conferences closely mirroring their interests. the PAC would seemingly benefit greatly from expansion so they are pushing that. The AAC would benefit greatly from expansion, but only if it has a G5 autobid, so it is talking that up. The Big 12 would fare about the same so aren't saying much. The SEC and ACC are doing fine with the current CFP, so are "tamping the breaks" as you say.

For this reason, I will be very surprised if any changes are made before the CFP cycle ends in 2025.