(06-09-2021 06:39 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  If Conf Champ games are retained then 9-12 would have to be reserved for play in games on CCG weekend. At large runner ups or bubble ND or a 2nd G5 that forgoes its own CCG (or gets and exemption). Otherwise you run out of weekends on the calendar. The first round must be played before NYD and I don’t think kicking out Army Navy out of that weekend will fly (along with Exam preps).

9-12 play-in games CCG weekend doesn't "fix" the scheduling problem for a 10 team play-off preceded by a "first four" for two of those spots ... it's still the same total number of rounds for anywhere from 10 to 16, just different patterns of byes.

And it's easier to promote a 5-12 playoff round in a single weekend, hosted by the 5-8 seeds.

If that is the current weekend of Army-Navy, then Army-Navy will just have to move to rivalry week, or else move one week later and Navy risk going into a Go5 champions pick as AAC champion with one fewer game than the other Go5 champions.

12 schools in four rounds, 4 / 4 / 2 / 1 is the ambit claim, with P5 champions guaranteed a spot and best of Go5 champions guaranteed a spot. Another advantage of 12 over 8 is that it makes the P5 less unhappy about giving up one of those spots to the Go5 with 6 at-large spots to fill.

8 schools in three rounds, 4 / 2 / 1 is the fallback if the effort to grab the time on the calendar and the allowance for up to four postseason FBS games for a school comes up short.

(06-09-2021 12:35 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Still, may be better than going to the third or fourth Monday of January.

NFL playoff hype in the sports media is so strong that there are diminishing returns for college football the farther into January they go. The best place for the CFB playoff final, in terms of TV ratings, is probably where the final is right now.

(06-09-2021 11:35 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 10:47 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 10:30 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 08:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’m not understanding why any of that is a non-starter based on the reasons given. Extending the season and adding a week of travel might not be preferable in a vacuum, but I wouldn’t call those non-starters at all if that means maximizing the revenue from playoff expansion. Playoff expansion itself inherently means something in the current schedule and system will need to give… and in that scenario, I’d always bet on what makes the most money because *something* foreign to the current system will need to be introduced no matter what. If that means using the bowls, then they’ll use the bowls. If that means that they’ll exclude the bowls, then they’ll exclude the bowls. In either event, I don’t think any self-imposed concern about adding a week to the length of the season is going to get in the way if it means maximizing revenue.

They won't be able to sell tickets to those games three travel weekends. You of all people should know this. Are they going to have 4 QF on Saturday before NYD or on NYD itself, and then go back to campus venues for SF's? I would put big money that they won't. Hell, CSNbbs can ban me if I am wrong about this and they play the 1st round on neutral venues post Xmas. Not to mention the traditional bowls becoming QFs. This is the reason the CFP was never seriously considered for almost 100 years.

I still don't follow. We currently have teams going to bowl games that don't matter. Some of those same teams will now go to a bowl game that matters, and even less of them (the very best in the country) will play an extra week. Are they having trouble selling tickets to the semi's at neutral sites because the fans are worried that a team might advance and play the next week? That's ridiculous. The semi's sell loads of tickets, to travelling fans and casual fans alike.

I'm definitely down for home-site first rounds/play-ins whatever you call them if we go to 12, but there is zero reason that all the NY6 bowls shouldn't be the quarters/semis for the top 8 teams.

The games will not sell unless they are deeply discounted and devoid of traveling fans. Has CFB not considered this ever? They have... it's the reason why they stopped at 4 teams and will likely remain that way until travel is alleviated. There is no way fanbases are going to do three travel weekends back to back to back. Imagine families having the shell out that money and their kid has an injury before the draft, let alone the kids that have no shot of making the NFL. Those families will watch at home until the SF or F. Sugar Bowls will be loaded with local fans that paid pennies on the dollar, being mostly casual CF or sports fans.

1st round has to be campus venues and held on the current Army.vs.Navy/Heisman weekend on the week after if they want to get the last 4 on NYD as it is currently every three years.

(06-09-2021 10:42 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s talk about travel:

In a 5-1-6

In the opening round, only 4 teams have to travel (seeds 5-8 are playing at home, seeds 1-4 have a bye)

In the quarter finals, 8 teams travel—but they would have traveled to a bowl game anyway—these bowl games are just part of the playoff.

If you host the semis and the finals all on one site, there’s another trip for 4 teams.

Unless a 9-12 seed scores an upset, no one has to travel more than twice.

Except that means a week of hotel reservations SF to F. Are you going to play a Saturday Monday with no rest or prep?

Here is how it probably goes, if it's 12 teams, you have 4 play-in games. These games are played Army/Navy Weekend, which gets pushed back or is just relegated. Or... the season moves one week back (or one week/bye is cut).

QFs, campus sites the Saturday before NYD and after Xmas. SFs following Saturday week 18 of the NFL season at a neutral site. Final on MLK Holiday. There is no way in hell the season will be extended past this.

So what does everyone do for the other 5-7 times a team currently has to travel for games?

If, however, it's true that the CFP games have been super cheap, then I abandon my argument. I assumed they were a hot ticket in those cities for the fans of the teams or otherwise. Can anyone else confirm?

(06-09-2021 07:14 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 10:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 10:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 09:08 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 07:12 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Ya, but I’m not sure any P5 would replace their CCG with a first round that may or may not include their teams. They’ll definitely opt for money they control. Cutting back to 11? Hard to do with scheduling contracts and all, and a backward decision if you are also cutting the number of regular season weekends.

If you’re cutting CCGs, you better go full 16-team playoff and maximize that weekend. And if you are cutting to 11 games, maybe instead you roll the current bowl game allowance into the existing 12-game limit (ie. You only go bowling if you are a part of the neo-NY6/playoff OR if you intentionally schedule 11 regular season games); ADs will have their choice, a merciful way to sunset bowls.

Plus that would defeat one of the primary goals of expanding the playoffs. You want as many interesting/meaningful/valuable games as possible.

-You want as many conferences to feel like they have a shot to be represented for as long as possible through the season
-You want to regular season to be important to make the CCG
-You want the CCG to be important because a playoff spot is on the line
-You want MORE bowls to be important than they are now by making more of them have something on the line
-You want the most total games to matter so that the most people don't change the channel

That is why I don't think ditching conference championships would be on the table, and it's why conference auto-bids, at least to an extent, probably will be.

I've said this before. Look at the NFL model. Every division champ plus a few at-large wild cards to solve for bad divisions. It keeps the regular season interesting. It keeps people tuned when the 8-7 Cowboys and the 9-6 Giants play on week 17 for a division title. It keeps fans of a good 11-win team playing in a division with a 15-win team from tuning out over the last few weeks of the regular season. The system works to keep the most fans engaged as long as possible. We have the friggin template.

Correct.

Frankly, one of the biggest benefits of an expanded playoffs is that they make the P5 conference championship game last even more valuable.

There’s one thing that I’m certain of: whatever new playoff system will be completely additive to the current system. No one is giving up a single home game, conference championship game, or single penny. It’s all about putting an expanded playoff on top of what’s in place now.

P5 is NOT giving up a ccg. Now the Rose, Sugar and Orange Bowl deals will no longer be separate 2 out of 3 years like now That is one thing that will be given up in a playoff expansion.

I think they are going to prefer 10 over 12. That way, all the P5 get to the quarterfinals along with one wild card and the two play-in game winners.

I still don't understand what they are giving up. Won't all the NY6 bowls be quarter or semi finals every year in an expanded structure(vs. only once every 3 years now)? Why wouldn't they go for that? Has there been a year where a garbage Rose/Sugar bowl has drawn more eyeballs than a semi?

The Big 10 and Pac 12 get $40 million each directly from the Rose Bowl when it is NOT a playoff game. Same with the SEC and Big 12 and Sugar Bowl. The ACC gets $27 million from the Orange 2 out of 3 years and the SEC/Big 10/ND get $27 million when they get paired into the Orange.

(06-09-2021 12:55 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 06:39 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  If Conf Champ games are retained then 9-12 would have to be reserved for play in games on CCG weekend. At large runner ups or bubble ND or a 2nd G5 that forgoes its own CCG (or gets and exemption). Otherwise you run out of weekends on the calendar. The first round must be played before NYD and I don’t think kicking out Army Navy out of that weekend will fly (along with Exam preps).

9-12 play-in games CCG weekend doesn't "fix" the scheduling problem for a 10 team play-off preceded by a "first four" for two of those spots ... it's still the same total number of rounds for anywhere from 10 to 16, just different patterns of byes.

And it's easier to promote a 5-12 playoff round in a single weekend, hosted by the 5-8 seeds.

If that is the current weekend of Army-Navy, then Army-Navy will just have to move to rivalry week, or else move one week later and Navy risk going into a Go5 champions pick as AAC champion with one fewer game than the other Go5 champions.

12 schools in four rounds, 4 / 4 / 2 / 1 is the ambit claim, with P5 champions guaranteed a spot and best of Go5 champions guaranteed a spot. Another advantage of 12 over 8 is that it makes the P5 less unhappy about giving up one of those spots to the Go5 with 6 at-large spots to fill.

8 schools in three rounds, 4 / 2 / 1 is the fallback if the effort to grab the time on the calendar and the allowance for up to four postseason FBS games for a school comes up short.

Yes, that was a typo on me; I meant 5-12 and it would have to take place on Army Navy weekend if the CCGs are preserved. Either way, the schedule would not be extended with this format, as Wedge articulated this moment.

(06-09-2021 10:30 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 08:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’m not understanding why any of that is a non-starter based on the reasons given. Extending the season and adding a week of travel might not be preferable in a vacuum, but I wouldn’t call those non-starters at all if that means maximizing the revenue from playoff expansion. Playoff expansion itself inherently means something in the current schedule and system will need to give… and in that scenario, I’d always bet on what makes the most money because *something* foreign to the current system will need to be introduced no matter what. If that means using the bowls, then they’ll use the bowls. If that means that they’ll exclude the bowls, then they’ll exclude the bowls. In either event, I don’t think any self-imposed concern about adding a week to the length of the season is going to get in the way if it means maximizing revenue.

They won't be able to sell tickets to those games three travel weekends. You of all people should know this. Are they going to have 4 QF on Saturday before NYD or on NYD itself, and then go back to campus venues for SF's? I would put big money that they won't. Hell, CSNbbs can ban me if I am wrong about this and they play the 1st round on neutral venues post Xmas. Not to mention the traditional bowls becoming QFs. This is the reason the CFP was never seriously considered for almost 100 years.

They don't care. The big money is from TV, not fans in the stands.

Right now the semi-finals and finals get sold out. Maybe if you have 3 rounds, there will be some lag in the quarters and semis, but the finals will still be sold out. Most likely the semis will be lagging as the quarters have the advantage of being during holidays (assuming they use the existing NY day bowls).

(06-09-2021 02:34 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  So what does everyone do for the other 5-7 times a team currently has to travel for games?

If, however, it's true that the CFP games have been super cheap, then I abandon my argument. I assumed they were a hot ticket in those cities for the fans of the teams or otherwise. Can anyone else confirm?

Huh? These are campus games that are 95% packed with local fans. What are we even talking about?

(06-09-2021 02:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  They don't care. The big money is from TV, not fans in the stands.

Right now the semi-finals and finals get sold out. Maybe if you have 3 rounds, there will be some lag in the quarters and semis, but the finals will still be sold out. Most likely the semis will be lagging as the quarters have the advantage of being during holidays (assuming they use the existing NY day bowls).

So we are going to pretend there is a debilitating pandemic every year? CFB is not the NFL. It is not going to have 20 million people streaming or subscribing to some cheap cable service for one off events. Most CFB games would look and sound like **** on television without fans. And at some point the fake crowd noise pumping will get too pretentious. There may be a time in the far future where we have AI simulating fans and bands, and CFB fans change so drastically in their viewing consumption that the game can get by without fans in attendance, but we are far from that day.

I mean just think of these two images (hell, you can perfectly visualize these images to this day), the Bama fan after the Auburn kid took the FG back for a TD. Or the Michigan fans after the block punt return vs Michigan State. These people don't matter for TV? Or we are just going to have a few thousand of them in the building? It's just not going to be palatable for TV.

(06-09-2021 02:42 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 02:34 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  So what does everyone do for the other 5-7 times a team currently has to travel for games?

If, however, it's true that the CFP games have been super cheap, then I abandon my argument. I assumed they were a hot ticket in those cities for the fans of the teams or otherwise. Can anyone else confirm?

Huh? These are campus games that are 95% packed with local fans. What are we even talking about?

(06-09-2021 02:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  They don't care. The big money is from TV, not fans in the stands.

Right now the semi-finals and finals get sold out. Maybe if you have 3 rounds, there will be some lag in the quarters and semis, but the finals will still be sold out. Most likely the semis will be lagging as the quarters have the advantage of being during holidays (assuming they use the existing NY day bowls).

So we are going to pretend there is a debilitating pandemic every year? CFB is not the NFL. It is not going to have 20 million people streaming or subscribing to some cheap cable service for one off events. Most CFB games would look and sound like **** on television without fans. And at some point the fake crowd noise pumping will get too pretentious. There may be a time in the far future where we have AI simulating fans and bands, and CFB fans change so drastically in their viewing consumption that the game can get by without fans in attendance, but we are far from that day.

I mean just think of these two images (hell, you can perfectly visualize these images to this day), the Bama fan after the Auburn kid took the FG back for a TD. Or the Michigan fans after the block punt return vs Michigan State. These people don't matter for TV? Or we are just going to have a few thousand of them in the building? It's just not going to be palatable for TV.

Didn't see where the pandemic was mentioned.

So we added an extra travel game when we added a semi-final instead of just picking our favorite #1 and #2 and having them play a single bowl game. The same argument could have been made before we did that.

Can you point to a semi-final that has had bad attendance, or to one that has had worse ratings than a non-playoff bowl game?

(06-09-2021 02:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:14 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 10:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 10:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 09:08 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  Plus that would defeat one of the primary goals of expanding the playoffs. You want as many interesting/meaningful/valuable games as possible.

-You want as many conferences to feel like they have a shot to be represented for as long as possible through the season
-You want to regular season to be important to make the CCG
-You want the CCG to be important because a playoff spot is on the line
-You want MORE bowls to be important than they are now by making more of them have something on the line
-You want the most total games to matter so that the most people don't change the channel

That is why I don't think ditching conference championships would be on the table, and it's why conference auto-bids, at least to an extent, probably will be.

I've said this before. Look at the NFL model. Every division champ plus a few at-large wild cards to solve for bad divisions. It keeps the regular season interesting. It keeps people tuned when the 8-7 Cowboys and the 9-6 Giants play on week 17 for a division title. It keeps fans of a good 11-win team playing in a division with a 15-win team from tuning out over the last few weeks of the regular season. The system works to keep the most fans engaged as long as possible. We have the friggin template.

Correct.

Frankly, one of the biggest benefits of an expanded playoffs is that they make the P5 conference championship game last even more valuable.

There’s one thing that I’m certain of: whatever new playoff system will be completely additive to the current system. No one is giving up a single home game, conference championship game, or single penny. It’s all about putting an expanded playoff on top of what’s in place now.

P5 is NOT giving up a ccg. Now the Rose, Sugar and Orange Bowl deals will no longer be separate 2 out of 3 years like now That is one thing that will be given up in a playoff expansion.

I think they are going to prefer 10 over 12. That way, all the P5 get to the quarterfinals along with one wild card and the two play-in game winners.

I still don't understand what they are giving up. Won't all the NY6 bowls be quarter or semi finals every year in an expanded structure(vs. only once every 3 years now)? Why wouldn't they go for that? Has there been a year where a garbage Rose/Sugar bowl has drawn more eyeballs than a semi?

The Big 10 and Pac 12 get $40 million each directly from the Rose Bowl when it is NOT a playoff game. Same with the SEC and Big 12 and Sugar Bowl. The ACC gets $27 million from the Orange 2 out of 3 years and the SEC/Big 10/ND get $27 million when they get paired into the Orange.

So you're saying they get less when it IS a playoff game? I would think that the higher ratings would increase, not decrease, the payouts.

(06-09-2021 03:27 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 02:42 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 02:34 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  So what does everyone do for the other 5-7 times a team currently has to travel for games?

If, however, it's true that the CFP games have been super cheap, then I abandon my argument. I assumed they were a hot ticket in those cities for the fans of the teams or otherwise. Can anyone else confirm?

Huh? These are campus games that are 95% packed with local fans. What are we even talking about?

(06-09-2021 02:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  They don't care. The big money is from TV, not fans in the stands.

Right now the semi-finals and finals get sold out. Maybe if you have 3 rounds, there will be some lag in the quarters and semis, but the finals will still be sold out. Most likely the semis will be lagging as the quarters have the advantage of being during holidays (assuming they use the existing NY day bowls).

So we are going to pretend there is a debilitating pandemic every year? CFB is not the NFL. It is not going to have 20 million people streaming or subscribing to some cheap cable service for one off events. Most CFB games would look and sound like **** on television without fans. And at some point the fake crowd noise pumping will get too pretentious. There may be a time in the far future where we have AI simulating fans and bands, and CFB fans change so drastically in their viewing consumption that the game can get by without fans in attendance, but we are far from that day.

I mean just think of these two images (hell, you can perfectly visualize these images to this day), the Bama fan after the Auburn kid took the FG back for a TD. Or the Michigan fans after the block punt return vs Michigan State. These people don't matter for TV? Or we are just going to have a few thousand of them in the building? It's just not going to be palatable for TV.

Didn't see where the pandemic was mentioned.

So we added an extra travel game when we added a semi-final instead of just picking our favorite #1 and #2 and having them play a single bowl game. The same argument could have been made before we did that.

Can you point to a semi-final that has had bad attendance, or to one that has had worse ratings than a non-playoff bowl game?

Yes the Rose Bowl game already outdrew the playoff in the ratings as has been pointed out. As far as attendance, three weekends is a completely different animal. We hardly have a good statistical spread with Bama Clemson being over represented, but those fan bases are big enough to support two separate games. There is no way fans can justify three games unless two are within driving distance. Bama UGa NCG took place in Atlanta. There are only two times where Bama and Clemson had to travel west time zone for the NCG, and we are dealing with the same fan bases in both instances for those hard to reach venues.

We know OSU and Texas will always travel well. Very few fan bases can rival those schools, including Bama and Clemson on down years.

(06-09-2021 03:29 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 02:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  The Big 10 and Pac 12 get $40 million each directly from the Rose Bowl when it is NOT a playoff game. Same with the SEC and Big 12 and Sugar Bowl. The ACC gets $27 million from the Orange 2 out of 3 years and the SEC/Big 10/ND get $27 million when they get paired into the Orange.

So you're saying they get less when it IS a playoff game? I would think that the higher ratings would increase, not decrease, the payouts.

It's not the ratings. It's that when those games are semifinals, the TV rights are owned by the CFP and are part of the CFP's TV deal with ESPN. For the years when those games are not semifinals, the conferences have their own deals with ESPN and get the dollar amounts that bullet mentioned above.

(06-09-2021 03:55 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 03:27 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 02:42 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 02:34 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  So what does everyone do for the other 5-7 times a team currently has to travel for games?

If, however, it's true that the CFP games have been super cheap, then I abandon my argument. I assumed they were a hot ticket in those cities for the fans of the teams or otherwise. Can anyone else confirm?

Huh? These are campus games that are 95% packed with local fans. What are we even talking about?

(06-09-2021 02:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  They don't care. The big money is from TV, not fans in the stands.

Right now the semi-finals and finals get sold out. Maybe if you have 3 rounds, there will be some lag in the quarters and semis, but the finals will still be sold out. Most likely the semis will be lagging as the quarters have the advantage of being during holidays (assuming they use the existing NY day bowls).

So we are going to pretend there is a debilitating pandemic every year? CFB is not the NFL. It is not going to have 20 million people streaming or subscribing to some cheap cable service for one off events. Most CFB games would look and sound like **** on television without fans. And at some point the fake crowd noise pumping will get too pretentious. There may be a time in the far future where we have AI simulating fans and bands, and CFB fans change so drastically in their viewing consumption that the game can get by without fans in attendance, but we are far from that day.

I mean just think of these two images (hell, you can perfectly visualize these images to this day), the Bama fan after the Auburn kid took the FG back for a TD. Or the Michigan fans after the block punt return vs Michigan State. These people don't matter for TV? Or we are just going to have a few thousand of them in the building? It's just not going to be palatable for TV.

Didn't see where the pandemic was mentioned.

So we added an extra travel game when we added a semi-final instead of just picking our favorite #1 and #2 and having them play a single bowl game. The same argument could have been made before we did that.

Can you point to a semi-final that has had bad attendance, or to one that has had worse ratings than a non-playoff bowl game?

Yes the Rose Bowl game already outdrew the playoff in the ratings as has been pointed out. As far as attendance, three weekends is a completely different animal. We hardly have a good statistical spread with Bama Clemson being over represented, but those fan bases are big enough to support two separate games. There is no way fans can justify three games unless two are within driving distance. Bama UGa NCG took place in Atlanta. There are only two times where Bama and Clemson had to travel west time zone for the NCG, and we are dealing with the same fan bases in both instances for those hard to reach venues.

We know OSU and Texas will always travel well. Very few fan bases can rival those schools, including Bama and Clemson on down years.

The flip side is that a good portion of neutral site ticket sales are team-agnostic, so there are a lot of pre-sold corporate and high-dollar tickets and suites that are sold months or even years in advance regardless of who is playing.

Note that the Big Ten/Pac-12/Rose Bowl partnership will again be a critical driver in what the ultimate format looks like. Note that neither the Big Ten nor Pac-12 were in the CFP expansion working group, so I’d take any favoritism for on-campus games (at least beyond the first round of a 12-team playoff) with a massive grain of salt. The Rose Bowl will want to be involved in the playoff, but their leverage and protection comes via the Big Ten and Pac-12, so they can’t be just be an unaffiliated game every single year, either. Maybe have the Rose guaranteed to have any Big Ten or Pac-12 champ that gets a top 4 bye (whichever is higher if they both have top 4 teams) in the playoff every single year.

If they indeed agree on a 12 team or 10 team playoff, I am curious how they are going to seed teams in a playoff.

For the 12 team playoff, they may design the seeding in a way that two or four autobids always get the byes. For the 10 team playoff, four or six autobids may get the byes. In this way, the Rose Bowl is pretty much guaranteed to get Big Ten and/or Pac 12 champs in a quaterfinal.

(06-09-2021 07:08 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The Rose Bowl will want to be involved in the playoff, but their leverage and protection comes via the Big Ten and Pac-12, so they can’t be just be an unaffiliated game every single year, either.

The Rose Bowl committee said a few years ago that they would choose hosting a playoff game every year over having a Big Ten/Pac-12 bowl game.

Also, all of the bowls in the current CFP have the leverage of the current contract, if the CFP wants to change format in the next 5 seasons. The bowls could go to court if the CFP tries to cut them out or diminish their current status prior to the end of the contract. I suppose the CFP could hand each bowl a huge check in exchanging for eliminating them from the playoff process, but doing that for 6 bowls would be expensive.

If you follow what I posted earlier:

I would run it guaranteeing the P-5 champ a slot. That's five. I would then guarantee 4 P-5 seconds either divisional winners or a second school in the winners division. I would gurantee two spots to the G-5. I would guarantee one and only one true at large.

The top four get a week off. Using last year as an example:

1. Bama
2. Clemson
3. Ohio State
4. Iowa State
5. Washington vs. 12. Coastal
6. ND (using ACC second) vs. 11. Cincy
7. TAMU (SEC second) vs. 10. Florida (the only at large)
8. OU (B12 second) vs. 9. NW (Big 10 at large)

The Pac 12 does not get a second team. Then:

1. Bama vs. OU/NW
2. Clemson vs. TAMU/Florida
3. Ohio State vs. ND/Cincy
4. Iowa State vs. Washington/Coastal

A seeded format like this provides a chance for the 4/5/12 school to enjoy an upset before getting wacked by the number one.

Notre Dame has to be ranked higher than four of the P-5's second schools to get into the event.

This first weekend OU hosts NW, TAMU host Florida, ND hosts Cincy, and Washington host CC. There is no attendance problem or issue.
The second weekend Bama hosts OU/NW, Clemson host TAMU/Florida, OSU hosts ND/Cincy, and Iowa State hosts Washington/Coastal - again no ticket sales issues.

After this four teams are left and these three games can be at neutral sites. There is travel fatigue only if your school went on the road and is in the final four after being seeded 9-12.

(06-09-2021 07:21 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  If they indeed agree on a 12 team or 10 team playoff, I am curious how they are going to seed teams in a playoff.

For the 12 team playoff, they may design the seeding in a way that two or four autobids always get the byes. For the 10 team playoff, four or six autobids may get the byes. In this way, the Rose Bowl is pretty much guaranteed to get Big Ten and/or Pac 12 champs in a quaterfinal.

Ultimately, the way I think the playoffs will work is that we will see 4 bowls be the quarterfinal sites on a permanent basis:

Rose (PAC 12, Big 10)
Sugar (SEC)
Orange (ACC)
Cotton or Fiesta (Big 12)

Seeds 1-4 will get assigned to their historic bowl, if available. For 2020 since the top 4 were Alabama, Clemson, Ohio St, and ND:

Sugar: Alabama vs 5/12 winner
Orange: Clemson vs 6/11 winner
Rose: Ohio St vs 7/10 winner
Cotton/Fiesta: ND vs 8/9 winner

With no Big 12 team in the top 4, ND goes to the bowl typically assigned to them.

(06-09-2021 08:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:21 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  If they indeed agree on a 12 team or 10 team playoff, I am curious how they are going to seed teams in a playoff.

For the 12 team playoff, they may design the seeding in a way that two or four autobids always get the byes. For the 10 team playoff, four or six autobids may get the byes. In this way, the Rose Bowl is pretty much guaranteed to get Big Ten and/or Pac 12 champs in a quaterfinal.

Ultimately, the way I think the playoffs will work is that we will see 4 bowls be the quarterfinal sites on a permanent basis:

Rose (PAC 12, Big 10)
Sugar (SEC)
Orange (ACC)
Cotton or Fiesta (Big 12)

Seeds 1-4 will get assigned to their historic bowl, if available. For 2020 since the top 4 were Alabama, Clemson, Ohio St, and ND:

Sugar: Alabama vs 5/12 winner
Orange: Clemson vs 6/11 winner
Rose: Ohio St vs 7/10 winner
Cotton/Fiesta: ND vs 8/9 winner

With no Big 12 team in the top 4, ND goes to the bowl typically assigned to them.

It will be a mistake to involve the bowls in the quarterfinal round. I agree with others that have said the travel is too much for some of these fanbases. Honestly, I don't even like that the semis are held at bowl sites, but that's not going away.

Competitively speaking, the top seeds should get the opportunity to host a playoff game. It's likely a reward for having an excellent season and winning a CCG.

People are concerned about diminishing the regular season. While I don't think a 12 team setup does that, it would actually be a net improvement for the value of the regular season if you rewarded top seeds with a home game.

I would be happy to involve the bowl games in the system, but they should have to bid on the games. Heck, if the Rose Bowl wants to be home of the national championship game every year then I have no issue with it...but let them put up the best proposal for the game.

(06-09-2021 08:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  It will be a mistake to involve the bowls in the quarterfinal round.

But as I mentioned above, doing this before the current contract has run out means the bowls may fight a new CFP format, including in court, if you cut any of the 6 out of the new format or take away the number of playoff games they are contracted for in the remainder of the contract. The CFP may also be stuck with the title game sites they have already awarded.

(06-09-2021 07:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:08 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The Rose Bowl will want to be involved in the playoff, but their leverage and protection comes via the Big Ten and Pac-12, so they can’t be just be an unaffiliated game every single year, either.

The Rose Bowl committee said a few years ago that they would choose hosting a playoff game every year over having a Big Ten/Pac-12 bowl game.

Also, all of the bowls in the current CFP have the leverage of the current contract, if the CFP wants to change format in the next 5 seasons. The bowls could go to court if the CFP tries to cut them out or diminish their current status prior to the end of the contract. I suppose the CFP could hand each bowl a huge check in exchanging for eliminating them from the playoff process, but doing that for 6 bowls would be expensive.

That's my argument. Like the Rose Bowl, I would think that all the NY6 bowls would choose to be a playoff games every year vs. every three if they were offered. If not, then they probably wouldn't have opted into the rotation in the first place.

(06-09-2021 08:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 08:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  It will be a mistake to involve the bowls in the quarterfinal round.

But as I mentioned above, doing this before the current contract has run out means the bowls may fight a new CFP format, including in court, if you cut any of the 6 out of the new format or take away the number of playoff games they are contracted for in the remainder of the contract. The CFP may also be stuck with the title game sites they have already awarded.

I would keep the NY6 in the semis rotating the 6 bowls in as done currently, but adjust the tie-ins. The 4 bowls not hosting semis would get the 8 teams eliminated. I know a lot of teams wouldn’t care too much those 4 games, but most teams already don’t care about it, and I think ESPN would pay for an extra 4 quality games. Other than the 8 playoff games prior, this doesn’t really change the system.

Year 1
Rose and Sugar - Semis
Cotton - Big 12 vs. at-large
Fiesta - Big Ten vs. PAC-12
Orange - ACC vs. at-large
Peach - SEC vs. at-large

Year 2
Cotton and Orange - Semis
Fiesta - Big 12 vs. at-large
Peach - ACC vs. at-large
Rose - Big Ten vs. PAC-12
Sugar - SEC vs. at-large

Year 3
Fiesta and Peach - Semis
Cotton - Big 12 vs. at-large
Orange - ACC vs. at-large
Rose - Big Ten vs. PAC-12
Sugar - SEC vs. at-large