(05-20-2021 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  For that reason, a play-in game among the top two G5 champs seems like a good idea. I don't think we need more, as it is extremely unlikely that there will be three G5 champs who are comparable to each other.

I don't expect more is feasible. Indeed, I don't think even one play-in game is feasible in a 12 game set-up, so there goes the opportunity to have a big Go5 to Go5 showdown on the current Army-Navy game day.

And to be sure, they are likely to be seeded against the #1 seed afterwards, but "We am afraid to play the #1 seed" and "We deserve a shot at the championship" are not compatible sentiments. Hold one or the other, not both. At least this way there is game footage of a big game day win for the school that wins the play-in game.

(05-20-2021 12:00 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  Why are they trying to re-invent the wheel. And why do people say it's too many games and too many teams?

LOL

FCS has been doing it since 1978 and it works perfect for them. Modify it so that the games are played as a bowl game. Teams left out of the playoff can play in other low level bowl games. It's not Rocket Science SMH

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...-need-know

You can add the other NCAA and NAIA football divisions, NCAA basketball, baseball and hockey leagues. Did I miss anyone?

(05-20-2021 11:35 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 09:42 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 08:41 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  5-(2)-2 is mutual assured destruction. The G5 teams have to play a game while their opponent gets to rest.

To me, it just feels like pettiness among the MWC/C-USA/SBC/MAC over the fact that the AAC is generally better than them.

It would be hypocritical for the AAC to complain that their undefeated teams don't seem to get any real consideration for the CFP while also insisting their teams get deference for the NY6 over a Sun Belt team when said Sun Belt team has better wins and (on this particular season) there's no real difference between the AAC and Sun Belt except at the bottom.

The only workable solution for the conundrum of who gets in the CFP between a 1-loss P5 and an undefeated G5 is to expand the playoff. It's not fair to leave out a team like 2017 UCF and it's not fair to let a G5 get in over a P5 if their only loss is to some other team in the CFP.

If you only have 1 G5 rep you run into basically the same issue. That's why I advocate 10 autobids. If that's not palatable I think you're stuck having a play-in between the 2 best G5 teams to be fair.

You note "there's no real difference between the AAC and Sun Belt except at the bottom." Many fans of AAC programs make the same argument when they compare the AAC to the Pac-12.

The "real difference" is in resources (fan bases, budgets, coaches salaries, TV contract, etc.). In that respect, the AAC is superior to the Sun Belt just as the Pac-12 is superior to the AAC.

So much of college football "power" is about resources and not on the field results. It's unfair in some respects. But it's the reality.

And that is why some AAC fans don't want a play-in game. They feel the American has earned its perceived status as the "best of the G5" (in terms of a combo of resources and results) and, as such, is worthy of any preferential treatment it might receive.

I am a fan of Cincinnati, Memphis and Middle Tennessee State, so I try to stay neutral in the "AAC vs. other four G5 debate." I respect the Belt in football. A very good league.

I'd be surprised if any G5 league voted in favor of a play in game. The CFP committee ranks teams using the same criteria. Not sure I can wrap my head around the premise that they can evaluate the P5, but not the G5? Adding I haven't heard any G5 commish cede ground to the AAC, and it seems like an undo burden from a prep/rest perspective. Would a head to head will result in much difference? Seems like it unduly hinders the higher rated school...from whichever conference.

(05-20-2021 12:33 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  For that reason, a play-in game among the top two G5 champs seems like a good idea. I don't think we need more, as it is extremely unlikely that there will be three G5 champs who are comparable to each other.

I don't expect more is feasible. Indeed, I don't think even one play-in game is feasible in a 12 game set-up, so there goes the opportunity to have a big Go5 to Go5 showdown on the current Army-Navy game day.

And to be sure, they are likely to be seeded against the #1 seed afterwards, but "We am afraid to play the #1 seed" and "We deserve a shot at the championship" are not compatible sentiments. Hold one or the other, not both. At least this way there is game footage of a big game day win for the school that wins the play-in game.

I can't see how scheduling one additional game is unfeasible (infeasible?). To me, it can easily be done, and the "fairness" and "access" aspects to it is undeniable. It just gives all the G5 conference a much better chance of getting their champ on a path to the championship, no matter how unrealistic that ultimately is.

(05-20-2021 01:21 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 11:35 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 09:42 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 08:41 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  5-(2)-2 is mutual assured destruction. The G5 teams have to play a game while their opponent gets to rest.

To me, it just feels like pettiness among the MWC/C-USA/SBC/MAC over the fact that the AAC is generally better than them.

It would be hypocritical for the AAC to complain that their undefeated teams don't seem to get any real consideration for the CFP while also insisting their teams get deference for the NY6 over a Sun Belt team when said Sun Belt team has better wins and (on this particular season) there's no real difference between the AAC and Sun Belt except at the bottom.

The only workable solution for the conundrum of who gets in the CFP between a 1-loss P5 and an undefeated G5 is to expand the playoff. It's not fair to leave out a team like 2017 UCF and it's not fair to let a G5 get in over a P5 if their only loss is to some other team in the CFP.

If you only have 1 G5 rep you run into basically the same issue. That's why I advocate 10 autobids. If that's not palatable I think you're stuck having a play-in between the 2 best G5 teams to be fair.

You note "there's no real difference between the AAC and Sun Belt except at the bottom." Many fans of AAC programs make the same argument when they compare the AAC to the Pac-12.

The "real difference" is in resources (fan bases, budgets, coaches salaries, TV contract, etc.). In that respect, the AAC is superior to the Sun Belt just as the Pac-12 is superior to the AAC.

So much of college football "power" is about resources and not on the field results. It's unfair in some respects. But it's the reality.

And that is why some AAC fans don't want a play-in game. They feel the American has earned its perceived status as the "best of the G5" (in terms of a combo of resources and results) and, as such, is worthy of any preferential treatment it might receive.

I am a fan of Cincinnati, Memphis and Middle Tennessee State, so I try to stay neutral in the "AAC vs. other four G5 debate." I respect the Belt in football. A very good league.

I'd be surprised if any G5 league voted in favor of a play in game. The CFP committee ranks teams using the same criteria. Not sure I can wrap my head around the premise that they can evaluate the P5, but not the G5? Adding I haven't heard any G5 commish cede ground to the AAC, and it seems like an undo burden from a prep/rest perspective. Would a head to head will result in much difference? Seems like it unduly hinders the higher rated school...from whichever conference.

I'd be surprised if any G5 league other than the AAC opposed a play-in game. It just gives everyone a lot more chances to get in.

And if we accept that the CFP ranks teams based on the same criteria, then there's no need for a G5 autobid at all. To my understanding, the justification for a G5 autobid is that the there is some kind of systemic preference that works against G5 teams compared to P5 teams, such that a good G5 team just is very unlikely to get a "fair" ranking by comparison with P5 teams.

Now, I don't believe that at all, which is why I oppose autobids for anyone, but if that's the logic in play, then IMO it makes sense to apply it within the G5 as well. In this case, if the CFP has a preference for AAC teams over other G5, which I think it does *if* we are going to use the same kind of evidence cited to support the idea that the CFP process is biased against the G5 generally vs the P5, then it makes sense to ameliorate that by a play-in game. That would also increase opportunities for AAC teams too, btw, as if there had been such a setup during the past seven years of the CFP, the two times a team from another conference was selected for the NY6 spot, an AAC team would have been able to face them for that spot had a play-in existed.

(05-20-2021 01:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 01:21 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 11:35 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 09:42 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 08:41 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  5-(2)-2 is mutual assured destruction. The G5 teams have to play a game while their opponent gets to rest.

To me, it just feels like pettiness among the MWC/C-USA/SBC/MAC over the fact that the AAC is generally better than them.

It would be hypocritical for the AAC to complain that their undefeated teams don't seem to get any real consideration for the CFP while also insisting their teams get deference for the NY6 over a Sun Belt team when said Sun Belt team has better wins and (on this particular season) there's no real difference between the AAC and Sun Belt except at the bottom.

The only workable solution for the conundrum of who gets in the CFP between a 1-loss P5 and an undefeated G5 is to expand the playoff. It's not fair to leave out a team like 2017 UCF and it's not fair to let a G5 get in over a P5 if their only loss is to some other team in the CFP.

If you only have 1 G5 rep you run into basically the same issue. That's why I advocate 10 autobids. If that's not palatable I think you're stuck having a play-in between the 2 best G5 teams to be fair.

You note "there's no real difference between the AAC and Sun Belt except at the bottom." Many fans of AAC programs make the same argument when they compare the AAC to the Pac-12.

The "real difference" is in resources (fan bases, budgets, coaches salaries, TV contract, etc.). In that respect, the AAC is superior to the Sun Belt just as the Pac-12 is superior to the AAC.

So much of college football "power" is about resources and not on the field results. It's unfair in some respects. But it's the reality.

And that is why some AAC fans don't want a play-in game. They feel the American has earned its perceived status as the "best of the G5" (in terms of a combo of resources and results) and, as such, is worthy of any preferential treatment it might receive.

I am a fan of Cincinnati, Memphis and Middle Tennessee State, so I try to stay neutral in the "AAC vs. other four G5 debate." I respect the Belt in football. A very good league.

I'd be surprised if any G5 league voted in favor of a play in game. The CFP committee ranks teams using the same criteria. Not sure I can wrap my head around the premise that they can evaluate the P5, but not the G5? Adding I haven't heard any G5 commish cede ground to the AAC, and it seems like an undo burden from a prep/rest perspective. Would a head to head will result in much difference? Seems like it unduly hinders the higher rated school...from whichever conference.

I'd be surprised if any G5 league other than the AAC opposed a play-in game. It just gives everyone a lot more chances to get in.

And if we accept that the CFP ranks teams based on the same criteria, then there's no need for a G5 autobid at all. To my understanding, the justification for a G5 autobid is that the there is some kind of systemic preference that works against G5 teams compared to P5 teams, such that a good G5 team just is very unlikely to get a "fair" ranking by comparison with P5 teams.

Now, I don't believe that at all, which is why I oppose autobids for anyone, but if that's the logic in play, then IMO it makes sense to apply it within the G5 as well. In this case, if the CFP has a preference for AAC teams over other G5, which I think it does *if* we are going to use the same kind of evidence cited to support the idea that the CFP process is biased against the G5 generally vs the P5, then it makes sense to ameliorate that by a play-in game. That would also increase opportunities for AAC teams too, btw, as if there had been such a setup during the past seven years of the CFP, the two times a team from another conference was selected for the NY6 spot, an AAC team would have been able to face them for that spot had a play-in existed.

Personally, I'm okay with no autobids with the caveat the conference champs ranking top 6- 8...whatever number get in (which I think would have broad support). I just don't think there is some outcry within the G5. Each commish can be found stating that if one of their teams does what they are supposed to do, they are in.

(05-20-2021 02:03 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 01:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 01:21 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 11:35 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 09:42 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  It would be hypocritical for the AAC to complain that their undefeated teams don't seem to get any real consideration for the CFP while also insisting their teams get deference for the NY6 over a Sun Belt team when said Sun Belt team has better wins and (on this particular season) there's no real difference between the AAC and Sun Belt except at the bottom.

The only workable solution for the conundrum of who gets in the CFP between a 1-loss P5 and an undefeated G5 is to expand the playoff. It's not fair to leave out a team like 2017 UCF and it's not fair to let a G5 get in over a P5 if their only loss is to some other team in the CFP.

If you only have 1 G5 rep you run into basically the same issue. That's why I advocate 10 autobids. If that's not palatable I think you're stuck having a play-in between the 2 best G5 teams to be fair.

You note "there's no real difference between the AAC and Sun Belt except at the bottom." Many fans of AAC programs make the same argument when they compare the AAC to the Pac-12.

The "real difference" is in resources (fan bases, budgets, coaches salaries, TV contract, etc.). In that respect, the AAC is superior to the Sun Belt just as the Pac-12 is superior to the AAC.

So much of college football "power" is about resources and not on the field results. It's unfair in some respects. But it's the reality.

And that is why some AAC fans don't want a play-in game. They feel the American has earned its perceived status as the "best of the G5" (in terms of a combo of resources and results) and, as such, is worthy of any preferential treatment it might receive.

I am a fan of Cincinnati, Memphis and Middle Tennessee State, so I try to stay neutral in the "AAC vs. other four G5 debate." I respect the Belt in football. A very good league.

I'd be surprised if any G5 league voted in favor of a play in game. The CFP committee ranks teams using the same criteria. Not sure I can wrap my head around the premise that they can evaluate the P5, but not the G5? Adding I haven't heard any G5 commish cede ground to the AAC, and it seems like an undo burden from a prep/rest perspective. Would a head to head will result in much difference? Seems like it unduly hinders the higher rated school...from whichever conference.

I'd be surprised if any G5 league other than the AAC opposed a play-in game. It just gives everyone a lot more chances to get in.

And if we accept that the CFP ranks teams based on the same criteria, then there's no need for a G5 autobid at all. To my understanding, the justification for a G5 autobid is that the there is some kind of systemic preference that works against G5 teams compared to P5 teams, such that a good G5 team just is very unlikely to get a "fair" ranking by comparison with P5 teams.

Now, I don't believe that at all, which is why I oppose autobids for anyone, but if that's the logic in play, then IMO it makes sense to apply it within the G5 as well. In this case, if the CFP has a preference for AAC teams over other G5, which I think it does *if* we are going to use the same kind of evidence cited to support the idea that the CFP process is biased against the G5 generally vs the P5, then it makes sense to ameliorate that by a play-in game. That would also increase opportunities for AAC teams too, btw, as if there had been such a setup during the past seven years of the CFP, the two times a team from another conference was selected for the NY6 spot, an AAC team would have been able to face them for that spot had a play-in existed.

Personally, I'm okay with no autobids with the caveat the conference champs ranking top 6- 8...whatever number get in (which I think would have broad support). I just don't think there is some outcry within the G5. Each commish can be found stating that if one of their teams does what they are supposed to do, they are in.

Personally, I think you're dead wrong. If they set the Playoffs to 8 teams with no Autobids, you can bet that not one G5 school will be ranked above 10th ever. It's just that simple. Those whom have power do not relinquish it willingly and the Rich do not share their wealth.

(05-20-2021 02:03 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Personally, I'm okay with no autobids with the caveat the conference champs ranking top 6- 8...whatever number get in (which I think would have broad support). I just don't think there is some outcry within the G5. Each commish can be found stating that if one of their teams does what they are supposed to do, they are in.

Ya, competitively, you don't really need a sub-## team competing for the title, whether you are P5 or G5. An 8-5 Power Champion can hang a banner in their stadium... but fans nationally would rather see that 10-2 team who had 1 bad game and a close loss to another playoff contender.

But, the P5 will insist on auto-bids for their champs. It is guaranteed exposure, and for the same reason the G5 will push for it too. Even if the MAC gets a team in every 8 years, ranked in the teens, that is exposure they can't "turn down" especially if the American champ scores 2 upsets in those same 8 years.

I could see a generous IF statement for all "auto-bids", that they need to be ranked in the Top 20 or Top 16. Those lower champs will still go to one of the 2-3 "Access" bowls that year, and get roughly the same payout; but another team (second G5 ranked in the Top 16?) will replace them in the playoff proper.

(05-20-2021 03:17 PM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 02:03 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 01:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 01:21 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 11:35 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  You note "there's no real difference between the AAC and Sun Belt except at the bottom." Many fans of AAC programs make the same argument when they compare the AAC to the Pac-12.

The "real difference" is in resources (fan bases, budgets, coaches salaries, TV contract, etc.). In that respect, the AAC is superior to the Sun Belt just as the Pac-12 is superior to the AAC.

So much of college football "power" is about resources and not on the field results. It's unfair in some respects. But it's the reality.

And that is why some AAC fans don't want a play-in game. They feel the American has earned its perceived status as the "best of the G5" (in terms of a combo of resources and results) and, as such, is worthy of any preferential treatment it might receive.

I am a fan of Cincinnati, Memphis and Middle Tennessee State, so I try to stay neutral in the "AAC vs. other four G5 debate." I respect the Belt in football. A very good league.

I'd be surprised if any G5 league voted in favor of a play in game. The CFP committee ranks teams using the same criteria. Not sure I can wrap my head around the premise that they can evaluate the P5, but not the G5? Adding I haven't heard any G5 commish cede ground to the AAC, and it seems like an undo burden from a prep/rest perspective. Would a head to head will result in much difference? Seems like it unduly hinders the higher rated school...from whichever conference.

I'd be surprised if any G5 league other than the AAC opposed a play-in game. It just gives everyone a lot more chances to get in.

And if we accept that the CFP ranks teams based on the same criteria, then there's no need for a G5 autobid at all. To my understanding, the justification for a G5 autobid is that the there is some kind of systemic preference that works against G5 teams compared to P5 teams, such that a good G5 team just is very unlikely to get a "fair" ranking by comparison with P5 teams.

Now, I don't believe that at all, which is why I oppose autobids for anyone, but if that's the logic in play, then IMO it makes sense to apply it within the G5 as well. In this case, if the CFP has a preference for AAC teams over other G5, which I think it does *if* we are going to use the same kind of evidence cited to support the idea that the CFP process is biased against the G5 generally vs the P5, then it makes sense to ameliorate that by a play-in game. That would also increase opportunities for AAC teams too, btw, as if there had been such a setup during the past seven years of the CFP, the two times a team from another conference was selected for the NY6 spot, an AAC team would have been able to face them for that spot had a play-in existed.

Personally, I'm okay with no autobids with the caveat the conference champs ranking top 6- 8...whatever number get in (which I think would have broad support). I just don't think there is some outcry within the G5. Each commish can be found stating that if one of their teams does what they are supposed to do, they are in.

Personally, I think you're dead wrong. If they set the Playoffs to 8 teams with no Autobids, you can bet that not one G5 school will be ranked above 10th ever. It's just that simple. Those whom have power do not relinquish it willingly and the Rich do not share their wealth.

You misunderstand, I'm not saying the G5 champ will be ranked top 8, just that I'm okay with conference champ autobids within an agreed upon threshold...whether the G5 qualifies or not. The other point is that I don't think the G5 (G4 outside the AAC is united)...granted previous statements were about access bowls and not CFP slots.

(05-20-2021 03:48 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 03:17 PM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 02:03 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 01:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 01:21 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  I'd be surprised if any G5 league voted in favor of a play in game. The CFP committee ranks teams using the same criteria. Not sure I can wrap my head around the premise that they can evaluate the P5, but not the G5? Adding I haven't heard any G5 commish cede ground to the AAC, and it seems like an undo burden from a prep/rest perspective. Would a head to head will result in much difference? Seems like it unduly hinders the higher rated school...from whichever conference.

I'd be surprised if any G5 league other than the AAC opposed a play-in game. It just gives everyone a lot more chances to get in.

And if we accept that the CFP ranks teams based on the same criteria, then there's no need for a G5 autobid at all. To my understanding, the justification for a G5 autobid is that the there is some kind of systemic preference that works against G5 teams compared to P5 teams, such that a good G5 team just is very unlikely to get a "fair" ranking by comparison with P5 teams.

Now, I don't believe that at all, which is why I oppose autobids for anyone, but if that's the logic in play, then IMO it makes sense to apply it within the G5 as well. In this case, if the CFP has a preference for AAC teams over other G5, which I think it does *if* we are going to use the same kind of evidence cited to support the idea that the CFP process is biased against the G5 generally vs the P5, then it makes sense to ameliorate that by a play-in game. That would also increase opportunities for AAC teams too, btw, as if there had been such a setup during the past seven years of the CFP, the two times a team from another conference was selected for the NY6 spot, an AAC team would have been able to face them for that spot had a play-in existed.

Personally, I'm okay with no autobids with the caveat the conference champs ranking top 6- 8...whatever number get in (which I think would have broad support). I just don't think there is some outcry within the G5. Each commish can be found stating that if one of their teams does what they are supposed to do, they are in.

Personally, I think you're dead wrong. If they set the Playoffs to 8 teams with no Autobids, you can bet that not one G5 school will be ranked above 10th ever. It's just that simple. Those whom have power do not relinquish it willingly and the Rich do not share their wealth.

You misunderstand, I'm not saying the G5 champ will be ranked top 8, just that I'm okay with conference champ autobids within an agreed upon threshold...whether the G5 qualifies or not. The other point is that I don't think the G5 (G4 outside the AAC is united)...granted previous statements were about access bowls and not CFP slots.

Oh, I misunderstood. All clear now and yes, the G4 are not united in any way.

Where is 5-5-6 as an option? Obviously this is the most fair, but it isn't about fair. 5-1-2 is more likely to happen at this point in time where it only adds one additional game and generally there is a path to the CFP for everyone.

(05-20-2021 04:13 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  Where is 5-5-6 as an option? Obviously this is the most fair, but it isn't about fair. 5-1-2 is more likely to happen at this point in time where it only adds one additional game and generally there is a path to the CFP for everyone.

I sympathize with the 5-5-6 crowd but I just don’t see the added games being good for tv or revenue. Seeds 1-4 are likely going to slaughter most of the G5 champs The same way 1 and 2 seeds do to the 15 and 16s in basketball. These games won’t get a lot of eyeballs because:

1 of the participants has a small following
Casual viewers will assume the conclusion and not tune in.

(05-20-2021 12:00 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  Why are they trying to re-invent the wheel. And why do people say it's too many games and too many teams?

LOL

FCS has been doing it since 1978 and it works perfect for them. Modify it so that the games are played as a bowl game. Teams left out of the playoff can play in other low level bowl games. It's not Rocket Science SMH

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...-need-know

That's what you want eventually. A 24 team playoff with 10 autobids, like FCS has.

For now, if the question is 8 teams or 12, the answer is 12, because the bigger it gets now, the closer they'll get to 24 in the next playoff expansion.

(05-20-2021 12:00 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  Why are they trying to re-invent the wheel. And why do people say it's too many games and too many teams?

LOL

FCS has been doing it since 1978 and it works perfect for them. Modify it so that the games are played as a bowl game. Teams left out of the playoff can play in other low level bowl games. It's not Rocket Science SMH

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...-need-know

Well, sure. How many games do they play during the “regular” season? Do they also play CCG?

(05-20-2021 02:03 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 01:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 01:21 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 11:35 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 09:42 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  It would be hypocritical for the AAC to complain that their undefeated teams don't seem to get any real consideration for the CFP while also insisting their teams get deference for the NY6 over a Sun Belt team when said Sun Belt team has better wins and (on this particular season) there's no real difference between the AAC and Sun Belt except at the bottom.

The only workable solution for the conundrum of who gets in the CFP between a 1-loss P5 and an undefeated G5 is to expand the playoff. It's not fair to leave out a team like 2017 UCF and it's not fair to let a G5 get in over a P5 if their only loss is to some other team in the CFP.

If you only have 1 G5 rep you run into basically the same issue. That's why I advocate 10 autobids. If that's not palatable I think you're stuck having a play-in between the 2 best G5 teams to be fair.

You note "there's no real difference between the AAC and Sun Belt except at the bottom." Many fans of AAC programs make the same argument when they compare the AAC to the Pac-12.

The "real difference" is in resources (fan bases, budgets, coaches salaries, TV contract, etc.). In that respect, the AAC is superior to the Sun Belt just as the Pac-12 is superior to the AAC.

So much of college football "power" is about resources and not on the field results. It's unfair in some respects. But it's the reality.

And that is why some AAC fans don't want a play-in game. They feel the American has earned its perceived status as the "best of the G5" (in terms of a combo of resources and results) and, as such, is worthy of any preferential treatment it might receive.

I am a fan of Cincinnati, Memphis and Middle Tennessee State, so I try to stay neutral in the "AAC vs. other four G5 debate." I respect the Belt in football. A very good league.

I'd be surprised if any G5 league voted in favor of a play in game. The CFP committee ranks teams using the same criteria. Not sure I can wrap my head around the premise that they can evaluate the P5, but not the G5? Adding I haven't heard any G5 commish cede ground to the AAC, and it seems like an undo burden from a prep/rest perspective. Would a head to head will result in much difference? Seems like it unduly hinders the higher rated school...from whichever conference.

I'd be surprised if any G5 league other than the AAC opposed a play-in game. It just gives everyone a lot more chances to get in.

And if we accept that the CFP ranks teams based on the same criteria, then there's no need for a G5 autobid at all. To my understanding, the justification for a G5 autobid is that the there is some kind of systemic preference that works against G5 teams compared to P5 teams, such that a good G5 team just is very unlikely to get a "fair" ranking by comparison with P5 teams.

Now, I don't believe that at all, which is why I oppose autobids for anyone, but if that's the logic in play, then IMO it makes sense to apply it within the G5 as well. In this case, if the CFP has a preference for AAC teams over other G5, which I think it does *if* we are going to use the same kind of evidence cited to support the idea that the CFP process is biased against the G5 generally vs the P5, then it makes sense to ameliorate that by a play-in game. That would also increase opportunities for AAC teams too, btw, as if there had been such a setup during the past seven years of the CFP, the two times a team from another conference was selected for the NY6 spot, an AAC team would have been able to face them for that spot had a play-in existed.

Personally, I'm okay with no autobids with the caveat the conference champs ranking top 6- 8...whatever number get in (which I think would have broad support). I just don't think there is some outcry within the G5. Each commish can be found stating that if one of their teams does what they are supposed to do, they are in.

I agree that I seem to be advocating for a position that doesn't seem to resonate among those who would stand to benefit the most from it, the other G5 conferences. They were willing to sign on to a single NY6 autobid in 2012, and I've seen no indication they wouldn't be happy to do the same for a single playoff autobid.

Given AAC dominance, that is perplexing to me, but I agree that's how it seems to be.

(05-20-2021 01:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 12:33 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  I don't expect more is feasible. Indeed, I don't think even one play-in game is feasible in a 12 game set-up, so there goes the opportunity to have a big Go5 to Go5 showdown on the current Army-Navy game day. ...

I can't see how scheduling one additional game is unfeasible (infeasible?). ...

Compared to the present set-up, adding it into the 12 team set-up would be three extra games for the Go5 schools, one or two extra games for everyone else ... play-in game, then round one game, then quarterfinal game, then semi-final, then championship.

A play-in game for the top two Go5 schools added to the 8 team set-up would be, compared to the status quo, two extra games for the Go5 schools, one extra game for everyone else.

As far as what the Go5 signed up for, what non-AQ / non-Autonomy schools seem to have been aiming for ever since the BCS system began has been "more access", with those schools successfully negotiating a drop in the hurdles to qualify into the BCS system in each revision, and then in the CFP the first guaranteed game.

Relative to the prior status quo, each upgrade in access would have been welcome, but I would not surprised if their ambit claim each time was greater than what they ended up with. The guaranteed Access bowl spot has created more interest in the Go5 conference championship races. I expect a guaranteed playoff spot increase that interest even more.

But if after the conference champions have been decided on the field, crowning the Best of the Champions as a beauty contest decided by a committee behind close doors is an anti-climax. To my mind, given that an all-conference knockout is not practical, having the beauty contest committee pick the top two and having them settle it on the field is the most appealing end to the process that might be feasible.

It's probably not my guess which WILL happen, but for the MAC, it would be the best outcome.

(05-21-2021 06:50 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 01:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 12:33 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  I don't expect more is feasible. Indeed, I don't think even one play-in game is feasible in a 12 game set-up, so there goes the opportunity to have a big Go5 to Go5 showdown on the current Army-Navy game day. ...

I can't see how scheduling one additional game is unfeasible (infeasible?). ...

Compared to the present set-up, adding it into the 12 team set-up would be three extra games for the Go5 schools, one or two extra games for everyone else ... play-in game, then round one game, then quarterfinal game, then semi-final, then championship.

A play-in game for the top two Go5 schools added to the 8 team set-up would be, compared to the status quo, two extra games for the Go5 schools, one extra game for everyone else.

I think the imperative for a G5 play-in game is greater for a 5-1-2 setup than 5-1-6, because with 5-1-6 there is a better chance of a second G5 getting in as a wild card. IIRC, that would have put Coastal in last year, along with Cincy.

(05-21-2021 08:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-21-2021 06:50 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 01:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 12:33 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  I don't expect more is feasible. Indeed, I don't think even one play-in game is feasible in a 12 game set-up, so there goes the opportunity to have a big Go5 to Go5 showdown on the current Army-Navy game day. ...

I can't see how scheduling one additional game is unfeasible (infeasible?). ...

Compared to the present set-up, adding it into the 12 team set-up would be three extra games for the Go5 schools, one or two extra games for everyone else ... play-in game, then round one game, then quarterfinal game, then semi-final, then championship.

A play-in game for the top two Go5 schools added to the 8 team set-up would be, compared to the status quo, two extra games for the Go5 schools, one extra game for everyone else.

I think the imperative for a G5 play-in game is greater for a 5-1-2 setup than 5-1-6, because with 5-1-6 there is a better chance of a second G5 getting in as a wild card. IIRC, that would have put Coastal in last year, along with Cincy.

I agree, Quo. I would be fine with a 5-1-6. I would also be OK with a 5-1-2 with a G5 play-in game (as you advocate). But, I slightly prefer no play-in to that option.

At this point, I'll take anything better than the present system.

I prefer 6-2.

The autobids give meaning to the conference championships and take away some of the Selection Committee power...but you also avoid a situation where #15 P5 champ gets preference over #8 G5 champ.

(05-21-2021 02:14 PM)YNot Wrote:  I prefer 6-2.

The autobids give meaning to the conference championships and take away some of the Selection Committee power...but you also avoid a situation where #15 P5 champ gets preference over #8 G5 champ.

And, if no conference’s bid is automatic, cap the 6 champions at “Top 16” or so.