Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Pete Thamel: 12-Team CFP Model Leads The Way
Author Message
CliftonAve Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 17,610
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 736
I Root For: CinCity Pride
Location:
Post: #1
Pete Thamel: 12-Team CFP Model Leads The Way
https://sports.yahoo.com/college-footbal...ZBt94PJA2U

Pete Thamel indicating his sources reveal the 12-team expanded playoff most likely. His explanation make a lot of sense, the P5 conferences will want an at-large bid, 12 teams will allow them more opportunities for multiple bids, Notre Dame will be taken care of and they will be able to have an at-large for the highest rated G5 school.
06-08-2021 07:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,441
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1287
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #2
RE: Pete Thamel: 12-Team CFP Model Leads The Way
(06-08-2021 07:08 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  https://sports.yahoo.com/college-footbal...ZBt94PJA2U

Pete Thamel indicating his sources reveal the 12-team expanded playoff most likely. His explanation make a lot of sense, the P5 conferences will want an at-large bid, 12 teams will allow them more opportunities for multiple bids, Notre Dame will be taken care of and they will be able to have an at-large for the highest rated G5 school.

Yes, if there really is a political imperative to have autobids - which I hate, but if - then the G5 will get one, and that means the only way the B1G and SEC can continue to distinguish themselves with multiple bids is if we have a 12-team model.

Right now, they can do that with the NY6 bids. But with expanded playoffs there will be no more NY6.
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2021 08:35 AM by quo vadis.)
06-08-2021 08:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,659
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 164
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Pete Thamel: 12-Team CFP Model Leads The Way
This is good news in my opinion. I expected 8, so 12 would be a tremendous boon. Yes, there will be some early round blowouts but the massive increase in varieties of teams and not de facto eliminating most schools by October will make this a great move for the sport.

Also, opening the door to having playoff games (even if it's just the first round) on campus is huge!
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2021 08:46 AM by Gamecock.)
06-08-2021 08:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
Craft beer and urban living enthusiast
*

Posts: 3,781
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 261
I Root For: VUMemIUDePaulNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #4
RE: Pete Thamel: 12-Team CFP Model Leads The Way
I could easily get on board with the 12-team model.
06-08-2021 08:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
PicksUp Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Mar 2018
Reputation: 32
I Root For: UTEP
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Pete Thamel: 12-Team CFP Model Leads The Way
(06-08-2021 08:36 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  This is good news in my opinion. I expected 8, so 12 would be a tremendous boon. Yes, there will be some early round blowouts but the massive increase in varieties of teams and not de facto eliminating most schools by October will make this a great move for the sport.

Sure, we need more teams with 3-4 losses in the playoffs. That sounds just great.
06-08-2021 08:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JamesTKirk Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 65
Joined: Mar 2021
Reputation: 3
I Root For: the underdog
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Pete Thamel: 12-Team CFP Model Leads The Way
.

From the standpoint of the non-P5 schools, there seem to be a few positives:

1) Contrary to previous reports which had suggested that the CFP executive committee would oppose CFP expansion until its mandate expires in 2026, it appears that there is real movement toward a CFP expansion.

--The main benefit to the non-P5 schools is that any expansion in the size of the CFP field would increase the likelihood that one of the most highly-ranked non-P5 teams might be able to compete in the playoffs.

2) A 12-team field with multiple at-large teams might be more favorable than an 8-team field with fewer at-large teams would be to the potential inclusion of more than one non-P5 team in a playoff.

--For example, in 2020, a 12-team field might have made it theoretically possible for there to have been two non-P5 teams - - #8 Cincinnati and #11 Coastal Carolina, whereas Cincinnati would have been the only non-P5 team in an 8-team field.

3) An expedited shift to an expanded CFP might be particularly beneficial to the AAC, because - - as the top-ranked G5 conference - - the AAC would be in the strongest position to have teams in the annual playoffs.

--This could give the AAC a much-needed boost with respect to its "P6" strategic plan, if it motivates 2 or 3 high-quality western FBS schools to join the AAC.

.

There are two major flaws with the plan as sketched out:

A) The top four teams would receive a first-round bye. This would fundamentally unfair to the other eight teams in the playoffs.

Ideally, everything that can be done should be done to ensure that the teams compete on an even playing field.

--With an overabundance of funding, due to the wealth generated by televising the games, all teams could and should play an equal number of games.

--A 16-team playoff would meet this criterion. A 16-team playoff would also make it much more likely that more than one non-P5 team would be able to participate in the playoffs.

B) The eight #5 through #12 teams would play their first round games on the home fields of the #5, #6, #7, and #8 ranked teams.

This would be fundamentally unfair to the lower-seeded teams, and it would be a violation of the principle that everything that can be done should be done to ensure that the teams compete on an even playing field.

--There will be such a huge overabundance of funding that the games could easily be played on neutral fields.

.
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2021 09:43 AM by JamesTKirk.)
06-08-2021 09:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


domer1978 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,408
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Alaska/California
Post: #7
RE: Pete Thamel: 12-Team CFP Model Leads The Way
Maybe this will end the wild fantasies of ND joining the ACC for playoff access.
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2021 10:28 AM by domer1978.)
06-08-2021 10:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,448
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 644
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #8
RE: Pete Thamel: 12-Team CFP Model Leads The Way
(06-08-2021 09:16 AM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  .

From the standpoint of the non-P5 schools, there seem to be a few positives:

1) Contrary to previous reports which had suggested that the CFP executive committee would oppose CFP expansion until its mandate expires in 2026, it appears that there is real movement toward a CFP expansion.

--The main benefit to the non-P5 schools is that any expansion in the size of the CFP field would increase the likelihood that one of the most highly-ranked non-P5 teams might be able to compete in the playoffs.

2) A 12-team field with multiple at-large teams might be more favorable than an 8-team field with fewer at-large teams would be to the potential inclusion of more than one non-P5 team in a playoff.

--For example, in 2020, a 12-team field might have made it theoretically possible for there to have been two non-P5 teams - - #8 Cincinnati and #11 Coastal Carolina, whereas Cincinnati would have been the only non-P5 team in an 8-team field.

3) An expedited shift to an expanded CFP might be particularly beneficial to the AAC, because - - as the top-ranked G5 conference - - the AAC would be in the strongest position to have teams in the annual playoffs.

--This could give the AAC a much-needed boost with respect to its "P6" strategic plan, if it motivates 2 or 3 high-quality western FBS schools to join the AAC.

.

There are two major flaws with the plan as sketched out:

A) The top four teams would receive a first-round bye. This would fundamentally unfair to the other eight teams in the playoffs.

Ideally, everything that can be done should be done to ensure that the teams compete on an even playing field.

--With an overabundance of funding, due to the wealth generated by televising the games, all teams could and should play an equal number of games.

--A 16-team playoff would meet this criterion. A 16-team playoff would also make it much more likely that more than one non-P5 team would be able to participate in the playoffs.

B) The eight #5 through #12 teams would play their first round games on the home fields of the #5, #6, #7, and #8 ranked teams.

This would be fundamentally unfair to the lower-seeded teams, and it would be a violation of the principle that everything that can be done should be done to ensure that the teams compete on an even playing field.

--There will be such a huge overabundance of funding that the games could easily be played on neutral fields.

.

Who decided that was a principal? Most playoff models reward teams with the "best" regular season performance with some sort of advantage in the playoffs, and sometimes not just in the opening round.

That being said, IMO 12 teams is among the worst options for a CFP.
06-08-2021 10:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 17,921
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 837
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #9
RE: Pete Thamel: 12-Team CFP Model Leads The Way
This article is typical internet-era sports reporting.

The anonymous sources are identified only as "university officials, athletic directors, media executives and others around college sports." The writer is not telling us if any of those sources are people with real influence in CFP decisions, or people who may have "heard things", and have their own personal opinions, but effectively are just observers of the process. There isn't even any justification for not naming the sources.

The point of the article seems to be the writer laying down his "I reported it first" marker, even though he isn't reporting anything tangible and just has anonymous scuttlebutt. He doesn't have a real scoop such as "this is the playoff format that the committee will vote on next week" or "this is the new format to which the SEC and Big Ten have given their agreement".

/rant
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2021 10:31 AM by Wedge.)
06-08-2021 10:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EigenEagle Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,036
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 403
I Root For: Ga Southern
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Pete Thamel: 12-Team CFP Model Leads The Way
Here's the CFP rankings after the CCGs.

RED=autobid

1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Ohio State
4. Notre Dame
5. Texas A&M
6. Oklahoma
7. Florida
8. Cincinnati
9. Georgia
10. Iowa State
11. Indiana
12. Coastal Carolina (left out)
.
.
25. Oregon

So the 12-team would somewhat resemble this:

Play-in Games:
Georgia (9 seed) versus Oregon (12 seed)
Iowa State (10 seed) versus Indiana (11 seed)

Round of 8:
9 vs. 12 winner versus Alabama (1 seed)
10 vs 11 winner versus Clemson (2 seed)
Ohio State (3 seed) versus Cincinnati (8 seed)
Notre Dame (4 seed) versus Florida (7 seed)
Texas A&M (5 seed) versus Oklahoma (6 seed)
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2021 10:35 AM by EigenEagle.)
06-08-2021 10:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
domer1978 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,408
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Alaska/California
Post: #11
RE: Pete Thamel: 12-Team CFP Model Leads The Way
(06-08-2021 10:30 AM)Wedge Wrote:  This article is typical internet-era sports reporting.

The anonymous sources are identified only as "university officials, athletic directors, media executives and others around college sports." The writer is not telling us if any of those sources are people with real influence in CFP decisions, or people who may have "heard things", and have their own personal opinions, but effectively are just observers of the process. There isn't even any justification for not naming the sources.

The point of the article seems to be the writer laying down his "I reported it first" marker, even though he isn't reporting anything tangible and just has anonymous scuttlebutt. He doesn't have a real scoop such as "this is the playoff format that the committee will vote on next week" or "this is the new format to which the SEC and Big Ten have given their agreement".

/rant

To be fair that is what our media has become. Report first, damn the facts, just be first.
06-08-2021 10:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


random asian guy Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 361
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 26
I Root For: VT, Georgetown
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Pete Thamel: 12-Team CFP Model Leads The Way
“The issues are complex, but essentially, there are enough stakeholders who’d prefer to stay at four because of the advantages it gives them over growing to eight. Therefore, the likelihood of a 12-team version — there will even be some chatter about a 10-team tournament as a compromise — has bubbled up.”

1. Who prefers four over eight?
2. The 10 team tournament sounds intriguing. I prefer the 8 team version but a couple of play in games wouldn’t be that bad.
06-08-2021 11:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crayton Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 751
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 67
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Pete Thamel: 12-Team CFP Model Leads The Way
(06-08-2021 08:40 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  
(06-08-2021 08:36 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  This is good news in my opinion. I expected 8, so 12 would be a tremendous boon. Yes, there will be some early round blowouts but the massive increase in varieties of teams and not de facto eliminating most schools by October will make this a great move for the sport.

Sure, we need more teams with 3-4 losses in the playoffs. That sounds just great.
My sentiments as well.

(06-08-2021 11:17 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  “The issues are complex, but essentially, there are enough stakeholders who’d prefer to stay at four because of the advantages it gives them over growing to eight. Therefore, the likelihood of a 12-team version — there will even be some chatter about a 10-team tournament as a compromise — has bubbled up.”

1. Who prefers four over eight?
2. The 10 team tournament sounds intriguing. I prefer the 8 team version but a couple of play in games wouldn’t be that bad.
I prefer 4 to 8. Only upgrades: Champs Only; and add that Wild Card Game to give the two best non-division champs / independents a route to qualification.

(06-08-2021 09:16 AM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  A) The top four teams would receive a first-round bye. This would fundamentally unfair to the other eight teams in the playoffs.

Ideally, everything that can be done should be done to ensure that the teams compete on an even playing field.

--With an overabundance of funding, due to the wealth generated by televising the games, all teams could and should play an equal number of games.

--A 16-team playoff would meet this criterion. A 16-team playoff would also make it much more likely that more than one non-P5 team would be able to participate in the playoffs.
I think BYEs are fine. And, I'd like to point out that many of these at large teams won't be playing in CCGs. So, there is already a built-in disparity in games-played. IMO, BYEs should therefore be reserved for teams who have won those CCGs (won't happen because of ND); in part, for the same reasons you list. As pointed out in a previous thread, I'd also limit the number of CCG losers to 2, so CCGs don't lose their importance.
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2021 11:42 AM by Crayton.)
06-08-2021 11:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,368
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 109
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Pete Thamel: 12-Team CFP Model Leads The Way
(06-08-2021 10:33 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Here's the CFP rankings after the CCGs.

RED=autobid

1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Ohio State
4. Notre Dame
5. Texas A&M
6. Oklahoma
7. Florida
8. Cincinnati
9. Georgia
10. Iowa State
11. Indiana
12. Coastal Carolina (left out)
.
.
25. Oregon

So the 12-team would somewhat resemble this:

Play-in Games:
Georgia (9 seed) versus Oregon (12 seed)
Iowa State (10 seed) versus Indiana (11 seed)

Round of 8:
9 vs. 12 winner versus Alabama (1 seed)
10 vs 11 winner versus Clemson (2 seed)
Ohio State (3 seed) versus Cincinnati (8 seed)
Notre Dame (4 seed) versus Florida (7 seed)
Texas A&M (5 seed) versus Oklahoma (6 seed)

I know this is a hypothetical, but it is pointless to use this year's data. The Pac-12 barely had a season. Oregon only made the CCG because Washington had Covid-19 issues. Washington, Washington State, Arizona State, and Cal only played four games this season. Oregon had five players drafted, four of whom opted out of the 2020 season. Almost every team in the nation was affected by the pandemic and I just think the data has been corrupted and is useless from the 2020 season.
06-08-2021 11:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,441
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1287
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #15
RE: Pete Thamel: 12-Team CFP Model Leads The Way
(06-08-2021 11:17 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  “The issues are complex, but essentially, there are enough stakeholders who’d prefer to stay at four because of the advantages it gives them over growing to eight. Therefore, the likelihood of a 12-team version — there will even be some chatter about a 10-team tournament as a compromise — has bubbled up.”

1. Who prefers four over eight?

I would say the SEC and B1G. Eight would have a leveling effect, improving the PAC, ACC and B12 relative to the B1G and SEC, who typically place more teams in the NY6.

With eight, basically all P5 are equal with respect to playing in the big games, because the NY6 won't exist anymore.
06-08-2021 11:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Georgia_Power_Company Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,758
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 70
I Root For: GA Southern
Location: Statesboro GA
Post: #16
RE: Pete Thamel: 12-Team CFP Model Leads The Way
(06-08-2021 11:51 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(06-08-2021 10:33 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Here's the CFP rankings after the CCGs.

RED=autobid

1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Ohio State
4. Notre Dame
5. Texas A&M
6. Oklahoma
7. Florida
8. Cincinnati
9. Georgia
10. Iowa State
11. Indiana
12. Coastal Carolina (left out)
.
.
25. Oregon

So the 12-team would somewhat resemble this:

Play-in Games:
Georgia (9 seed) versus Oregon (12 seed)
Iowa State (10 seed) versus Indiana (11 seed)

Round of 8:
9 vs. 12 winner versus Alabama (1 seed)
10 vs 11 winner versus Clemson (2 seed)
Ohio State (3 seed) versus Cincinnati (8 seed)
Notre Dame (4 seed) versus Florida (7 seed)
Texas A&M (5 seed) versus Oklahoma (6 seed)

I know this is a hypothetical, but it is pointless to use this year's data. The Pac-12 barely had a season. Oregon only made the CCG because Washington had Covid-19 issues. Washington, Washington State, Arizona State, and Cal only played four games this season. Oregon had five players drafted, four of whom opted out of the 2020 season. Almost every team in the nation was affected by the pandemic and I just think the data has been corrupted and is useless from the 2020 season.

So if you look at a normal year like 2019 you get:
1. LSU SEC
2. Ohio St BIG 10
3. Clemson ACC
4. Oklahoma BIG 12
5. Georgia SEC
6. Oregon PAC 12
7. Baylor BIG 12
8. Wisconsin BIG 10
9. Florida SEC
10. Penn St BIG 10
11. Utah PAC 12
12. Auburn (left out)
*
*
17. Memphis AAC

3 SEC, 3 BIG 10, 2 BIG 12, 2 PAC 12, 1 ACC, 1 AAC

Play In Games
12. Memphis vs 9. Florida
11. Utah vs 10. Penn St

Round of 8

12/9 Winner vs 1. LSU
10/11 Winner vs 2. Ohio St
8. Wisconsin vs 3. Clemson
7. Baylor vs 4. Oklahoma
6. Oregon vs 5. Georgia
06-08-2021 12:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


SoCalBobcat78 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,368
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 109
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Pete Thamel: 12-Team CFP Model Leads The Way
(06-08-2021 10:30 AM)Wedge Wrote:  This article is typical internet-era sports reporting.

The anonymous sources are identified only as "university officials, athletic directors, media executives and others around college sports." The writer is not telling us if any of those sources are people with real influence in CFP decisions, or people who may have "heard things", and have their own personal opinions, but effectively are just observers of the process. There isn't even any justification for not naming the sources.

The point of the article seems to be the writer laying down his "I reported it first" marker, even though he isn't reporting anything tangible and just has anonymous scuttlebutt. He doesn't have a real scoop such as "this is the playoff format that the committee will vote on next week" or "this is the new format to which the SEC and Big Ten have given their agreement".

/rant

The problem with that kind of sourcing is this:
https://soonerswire.usatoday.com/2021/06...f-changes/
“Ultimately, the board will make a decision as to whether or not we move forward to take the next steps on what we’re recommending, but the fact is we manage by unanimous consent,” Bowlsby conveyed. “There are 11 parties to the contract and then there are a whole bunch of others that are TV partners and bowl partners, and others that have a dog in the fight. We really need to get to some position of practical unanimity and that’s not easy to accomplish. So to say that change is imminent would not be accurate, but I think we have a suggestion and a recommendation, and we’ll see what comes of it."

The new Pac-12 Commissioner has already gone on the record supporting the expansion of the playoffs. The Pac-12 wants an autobid for their conference champion.
https://theathletic.com/news/george-klia...Ln7NZnmQv1

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...sment-made
"The bowl system, it's worth saving. That's something we can't turn a blind eye to -- it's not just four, six or eight or whatever the playoff would look like. It is about we have a responsibility to the greater good of college football, and those bowl experiences are really important to the campuses across the NCAA that play FBS football."
The CFP is entering its eighth season of a 12-year contract. All parties involved must unanimously agree to change the contract before it expires. If there were to be expansion, Phillips said he would be in favor of conference champions being guaranteed a spot in the field.

In summary, these three commissioners seem to be saying about playoff expansion that:
1. It has to give an automatic bid to the Power Conference Champions.
2. It has to preserve the bowl system.
3. It has to be unanimous.

I found three power conference commissioners that went on the record. It is dificult to be specific about playoff expansion. Pete Thamel could be correct, but it could easily end up at 6 or 8 as well. They could also end up not getting anything done on playoff expansion.
06-08-2021 12:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crayton Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 751
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 67
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Pete Thamel: 12-Team CFP Model Leads The Way
(06-08-2021 12:33 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  Play In Games
12. Memphis vs 9. Florida
11. Utah vs 10. Penn St

Round of 8

12/9 Winner vs 1. LSU
10/11 Winner vs 2. Ohio St
8. Wisconsin vs 3. Clemson
7. Baylor vs 4. Oklahoma
6. Oregon vs 5. Georgia

9/8 Florida/Wisconsin vs 1 LSU
12/5 Memphis/Georgia vs 4 Oklahoma
10/7 Penn St/Baylor vs 2 Ohio St
11/6 Utah/Oregon vs 3 Clemson

OR, with avoiding rematches:

SUGAR: Penn St/Wisconsin vs 1 LSU
FIESTA: Memphis/Oregon vs 4 Oklahoma
ROSE: Florida/Baylor vs 2 Ohio St
ORANGE: Utah/Georgia vs 3 Clemson
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2021 12:52 PM by Crayton.)
06-08-2021 12:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,659
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 164
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #19
RE: Pete Thamel: 12-Team CFP Model Leads The Way
(06-08-2021 08:40 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  
(06-08-2021 08:36 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  This is good news in my opinion. I expected 8, so 12 would be a tremendous boon. Yes, there will be some early round blowouts but the massive increase in varieties of teams and not de facto eliminating most schools by October will make this a great move for the sport.

Sure, we need more teams with 3-4 losses in the playoffs. That sounds just great.

Based on 2019, this would be the playoff field:

12 Memphis @ 5 Georgia (Oklahoma)

9 Florida @ 8 Wisconsin (LSU)

11 Utah @ 6 Oregon (Clemson)

10 Penn State @ 7 Baylor (Ohio State)

Only one 3 loss team (Wisconsin at 10-3) and no team with fewer than 10 wins.
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2021 01:00 PM by Gamecock.)
06-08-2021 12:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,942
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 289
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #20
RE: Pete Thamel: 12-Team CFP Model Leads The Way
paraphrased your statement for brevity Quo:

(06-08-2021 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... if (they) have autobids then the G5 will get one ...

Right now, they can do that with the NY6 bids. But with expanded playoffs there will be no more NY6.

These assertions are both false. First the Playoff is not a standard NCAA tournament following NCAA rules. It is a special situation agreed to by the stakeholders who have uneven power. Whatever they decide will be like a collective bargaining agreement, the G5 will yield any regular NCAA rights and accept the new system. NCAA ByLaws will be adjusted to the format agreed, per usual.

So there is no reason and no possibility that G5 conferences will get an autobid. Instead they will probably have a minimum of one at-large reserved for the highest ranked non-autonomous school (BYU, Liberty, Army, UConn, UMass and NMSU get thrown in that pile).

As for the NY6, they will probably remain in some form either as 2nd round games hosted by the top four seeds, and two moving out of rotation to host 1st round. (Advantages: Championship game only a week later than now, only two "on-campus" semi-finals reducing unpredictability; two more bowls added to NY6 for 4 Christmas weekend games. Disadvantages: two NY6 Bowls move back to Christmas, greatly reducing the value of those games, especially for fans staying in town; four New Years games will see less demand as fans of teams will have spend vacation already on first round -- basically the hit is on the venue providers in this scheme)

Or they may go to unbalanced approach with all twelve schools playing in NY6 games as 1st round playoff, and the top two ranked winners getting 2nd round byes; the top four seed winners would get on campus home games in round 2 or 3; the Championship game pushes back two weeks. (Advantages: NY6 remains intact, four winning P5 schools get playoff home game, still one Championship game at neutral site, no other bowls required, no other disruption required. Disadvantages: Funky 2nd round byes, playoffs end a week later)

Bottom Line, we don't know what the format will be, so we don't know if this enhances or reduces the NY6 bowls. I think the latter is easy to execute, but the former is simpler on American minds, so probably wins out.

The use of the NY6 comes down to format chosen.
06-08-2021 01:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2021 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.