(06-11-2021 11:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 10:58 AM)usffan Wrote:  

USFFan

Conceptually, it makes no sense that lower-ranked teams would have byes while higher ranked teams do not.

Looney Tunes, imo.

You operate on the false assumption that "rankings" are some kind of scientific certainty.

(06-11-2021 12:10 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 11:56 AM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 11:25 AM)epasnoopy Wrote:  If the G5 conference commissioners are doing anything besides simply agreeing to this new plan and being grateful that we get one spot then they have no spines.

Accepting this plan will not lead to every FBS champion getting a spot in the playoff somewhere down the road.

We either demand it now or it's not happening later.

At this point, it's just a task force recommendation which is being publicized for the purpose of eliciting comments and suggestions. It's nowhere near the "take it or leave it" stage. Expanding the playoff system from only 4 to 12 schools is a massive increase in fairness as virtually everyone will admit. It could certainly be made even more fair in the future.

There has been lots of speculation (not just by you, you're just the most recent one to bring it up) that this hasn't been passed yet. While that's true, I don't think there's any way people like Swarbrick, Sankey and Bowlsby are going to be willing to put their reputations on the line and be made to look impotent without a degree of certainty that they're going to get embarrassed. This is done.

There's an old corporate saying, don't ask the question if you don't know the answer...

USFFan

One thing to keep in mind is that in the early 90s everyone thought a 16 team playoff would get done. Then a Free Shoes U. player came into a committee and asked what the player's cut would be. The next day the SEC unanimously voted to oppose a playoff.

While it seems the presidents and ADs are likely mostly on board, the players could rapidly shut this down.

(06-11-2021 11:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 11:25 AM)epasnoopy Wrote:  If the G5 conference commissioners are doing anything besides simply agreeing to this new plan and being grateful that we get one spot then they have no spines.

Accepting this plan will not lead to every FBS champion getting a spot in the playoff somewhere down the road.

We either demand it now or it's not happening later.

If they don't agree to it, then they have no brain. All they would accomplish is to have the autonomous conferences plus a small number of other schools break away, leaving them behind with a lot less money than they had before. They essentially would be relegated back to the equivalent of FCS which most of them ran away from in the past.

So, they can take a stand based on some nebulous "principle" and commit virtual suicide, or they can accept reality. Of course, it's also possible that future legislation will do them in anyway.

They should try to get it to top 7 conference champs. But be happy with top 6.

(06-11-2021 11:25 AM)epasnoopy Wrote:  If the G5 conference commissioners are doing anything besides simply agreeing to this new plan and being grateful that we get one spot then they have no spines.

Accepting this plan will not lead to every FBS champion getting a spot in the playoff somewhere down the road.

We either demand it now or it's not happening later.

"Demand it".

Or what, skippy? What leverage does the G5 have to demand anything? "It's fair?" GTFOWTBS, this is business. You want fairness and inclusion, go play FCS.

Never make a "demand" if you don't have a plan of action if your demand is laughed out of the room.

(06-11-2021 12:16 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  I disagree because they have a much higher bar to get in than the ACC champ which only needs to be Top 6.

ACC champ could be ranked 30, 40, 50 even behind a G5 champ and still get into the playoff.

That's technically possible, I suppose (it might not be), but in reality, if the ACC champ is outside the top 25, you'd almost certainly have 2 G5 champs in the top 6 conference champs.

Notre Dame (or anyone) needs to be top 10, maybe 11 or 12 if things break in their favor, to get a spot. You're not going to have fewer than 4 conference champs in the top 10.

(06-11-2021 06:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  3) Mystified as to why top 4 conference champs would get byes, not the 4 highest ranked teams. Makes no sense, imo.

This is college football. They don't design systems from first principles, they take previous examples and make kludgy rules to fix particular problems.

Lately, there have been years where Alabama could maybe lose the SEC title game and still be top 4. I'm pretty sure that's the reason for the "only conference champs are eligible for byes" rule. If Alabama wants the bye, they have to show up for the SEC title game. The Powers That Be do NOT want the conference title games to become like the conference basketball tournaments, with John Calipari saying "we don't hang 3 letter banners at Kentucky."

(On the other hand, the other team in the SEC title game is pretty much a lock for one of the six at-large spots, so maybe they're not as fired up for the SEC title game. But that's a future problem, to be addressed next cycle with a new kludge)

(06-11-2021 01:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 11:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 10:58 AM)usffan Wrote:  

USFFan

Conceptually, it makes no sense that lower-ranked teams would have byes while higher ranked teams do not.

Looney Tunes, imo.

You operate on the false assumption that "rankings" are some kind of scientific certainty.

What makes you think that?

The system obviously assumes the rankings mean something, as whether a team gets in to the playoffs or not depends on their ranking more than anything else.

So to me it makes no sense to rank teams, then give byes to lower ranked teams.

(06-11-2021 02:08 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 06:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  3) Mystified as to why top 4 conference champs would get byes, not the 4 highest ranked teams. Makes no sense, imo.

This is college football. They don't design systems from first principles, they take previous examples and make kludgy rules to fix particular problems.

Lately, there have been years where Alabama could maybe lose the SEC title game and still be top 4. I'm pretty sure that's the reason for the "only conference champs are eligible for byes" rule. If Alabama wants the bye, they have to show up for the SEC title game. The Powers That Be do NOT want the conference title games to become like the conference basketball tournaments, with John Calipari saying "we don't hang 3 letter banners at Kentucky."

(On the other hand, the other team in the SEC title game is pretty much a lock for one of the six at-large spots, so maybe they're not as fired up for the SEC title game. But that's a future problem, to be addressed next cycle with a new kludge)

Yeah i get that, but it still makes no sense. Rankings will surely reflect if you won a conference or not, so it is just plain weird.

Is there any other system used anywhere in which lower seeds get byes over higher seeds? Any sport?

(06-11-2021 02:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 01:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 11:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 10:58 AM)usffan Wrote:  

USFFan

Conceptually, it makes no sense that lower-ranked teams would have byes while higher ranked teams do not.

Looney Tunes, imo.

You operate on the false assumption that "rankings" are some kind of scientific certainty.

What makes you think that?

The system obviously assumes the rankings mean something, as whether a team gets in to the playoffs or not depends on their ranking more than anything else.

So to me it makes no sense to rank teams, then give byes to lower ranked teams.

But you still want the conferences and the regular season to mean something. By giving the top 4 conference champs a bye, you accomplish this.

(06-11-2021 02:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 02:08 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 06:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  3) Mystified as to why top 4 conference champs would get byes, not the 4 highest ranked teams. Makes no sense, imo.

This is college football. They don't design systems from first principles, they take previous examples and make kludgy rules to fix particular problems.

Lately, there have been years where Alabama could maybe lose the SEC title game and still be top 4. I'm pretty sure that's the reason for the "only conference champs are eligible for byes" rule. If Alabama wants the bye, they have to show up for the SEC title game. The Powers That Be do NOT want the conference title games to become like the conference basketball tournaments, with John Calipari saying "we don't hang 3 letter banners at Kentucky."

(On the other hand, the other team in the SEC title game is pretty much a lock for one of the six at-large spots, so maybe they're not as fired up for the SEC title game. But that's a future problem, to be addressed next cycle with a new kludge)

Yeah i get that, but it still makes no sense. Rankings will surely reflect if you won a conference or not, so it is just plain weird.

Is there any other system used anywhere in which lower seeds get byes over higher seeds? Any sport?

Pretty much every professional sport. Division champs mean something.

(06-11-2021 02:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 02:08 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 06:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  3) Mystified as to why top 4 conference champs would get byes, not the 4 highest ranked teams. Makes no sense, imo.

This is college football. They don't design systems from first principles, they take previous examples and make kludgy rules to fix particular problems.

Lately, there have been years where Alabama could maybe lose the SEC title game and still be top 4. I'm pretty sure that's the reason for the "only conference champs are eligible for byes" rule. If Alabama wants the bye, they have to show up for the SEC title game. The Powers That Be do NOT want the conference title games to become like the conference basketball tournaments, with John Calipari saying "we don't hang 3 letter banners at Kentucky."

(On the other hand, the other team in the SEC title game is pretty much a lock for one of the six at-large spots, so maybe they're not as fired up for the SEC title game. But that's a future problem, to be addressed next cycle with a new kludge)

Yeah i get that, but it still makes no sense. Rankings will surely reflect if you won a conference or not, so it is just plain weird.

Is there any other system used anywhere in which lower seeds get byes over higher seeds? Any sport?

The NBA used to give higher seeds (minimum top 4) to division champs but changed that in 2016.

(06-11-2021 02:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 02:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 02:08 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 06:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  3) Mystified as to why top 4 conference champs would get byes, not the 4 highest ranked teams. Makes no sense, imo.

This is college football. They don't design systems from first principles, they take previous examples and make kludgy rules to fix particular problems.

Lately, there have been years where Alabama could maybe lose the SEC title game and still be top 4. I'm pretty sure that's the reason for the "only conference champs are eligible for byes" rule. If Alabama wants the bye, they have to show up for the SEC title game. The Powers That Be do NOT want the conference title games to become like the conference basketball tournaments, with John Calipari saying "we don't hang 3 letter banners at Kentucky."

(On the other hand, the other team in the SEC title game is pretty much a lock for one of the six at-large spots, so maybe they're not as fired up for the SEC title game. But that's a future problem, to be addressed next cycle with a new kludge)

Yeah i get that, but it still makes no sense. Rankings will surely reflect if you won a conference or not, so it is just plain weird.

Is there any other system used anywhere in which lower seeds get byes over higher seeds? Any sport?

Pretty much every professional sport. Division champs mean something.

Yes, this is true.

That's certainly the case in the NFL - only division champs can get byes and even the worst division champs will be seeded higher and receive home field advantage over wild card teams with better records. (See the 7-10 NFC East champ Washington Football Team getting a higher seed and hosting the 12-5 wild card Tampa Bay Bucs last year.)

Same thing in MLB - there are many examples (it feels like every year) where at least one wild card team has a better record than a division champ. Yet, the wild card team is subject to a one-game elimination playoff while the division champ automatically goes to the Division Series.

So, on that principle, giving byes to only conference champs is consistent with those pro models.

(06-11-2021 11:59 AM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 11:52 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 11:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 11:25 AM)epasnoopy Wrote:  If the G5 conference commissioners are doing anything besides simply agreeing to this new plan and being grateful that we get one spot then they have no spines.

Accepting this plan will not lead to every FBS champion getting a spot in the playoff somewhere down the road.

We either demand it now or it's not happening later.

If they don't agree to it, then they have no brain. All they would accomplish is to have the autonomous conferences plus a small number of other schools break away, leaving them behind with a lot less money than they had before. They essentially would be relegated back to the equivalent of FCS which most of them ran away from in the past.

So, they can take a stand based on some nebulous "principle" and commit virtual suicide, or they can accept reality. Of course, it's also possible that future legislation will do them in anyway.

The 6-6 plan is backed by the SEC commissioner, ND, the PAC and MWC. I seriously doubt it will not be accepted.

ACC will like it as it puts pressure on ND. B1G will like it as it hurts ND.

If you go to 8 its not going to enough at-large bids. Go to 16 and no reward for finishing the season in the top 4. It sounds very much like the sweet spot.

I don't see how this does anything but help ND and their independent status. They just went from competing with everyone including conference champions for 4 spots to competing with the bottom 4 conference champions for 6 spots. They really do not care that they don't qualify for a first round bye since they don't have to play a CCG.

If anything this tells the ACC any off chance or hope you had of ND joining for football is dead.

This. 100% this. Lol, Tim Brando has hated ND all of his life. I have watched this man seethe with ND hate since I first moved to Baton Rouge in 1983 and he was the local sports anchor.

If he said that ND should turn left, it would be in ND's best interests to turn right.

He is totally wrong but he has shilled for ND to join a conference for decades.

(06-11-2021 11:56 AM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 11:25 AM)epasnoopy Wrote:  If the G5 conference commissioners are doing anything besides simply agreeing to this new plan and being grateful that we get one spot then they have no spines.

Accepting this plan will not lead to every FBS champion getting a spot in the playoff somewhere down the road.

We either demand it now or it's not happening later.

At this point, it's just a task force recommendation which is being publicized for the purpose of eliciting comments and suggestions. It's nowhere near the "take it or leave it" stage. Expanding the playoff system from only 4 to 12 schools is a massive increase in fairness as virtually everyone will admit. It could certainly be made even more fair in the future.

Do you know how many G5 teams will ever get a top 4 seed under this proposal? I bet zero. The playoff committee will never rank a G5 conference champ in the top 4. A G5 team has never been ranked in the top 4 under the current playoff system.

(06-11-2021 12:16 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 11:59 AM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 11:52 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 11:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 11:25 AM)epasnoopy Wrote:  If the G5 conference commissioners are doing anything besides simply agreeing to this new plan and being grateful that we get one spot then they have no spines.

Accepting this plan will not lead to every FBS champion getting a spot in the playoff somewhere down the road.

We either demand it now or it's not happening later.

If they don't agree to it, then they have no brain. All they would accomplish is to have the autonomous conferences plus a small number of other schools break away, leaving them behind with a lot less money than they had before. They essentially would be relegated back to the equivalent of FCS which most of them ran away from in the past.

So, they can take a stand based on some nebulous "principle" and commit virtual suicide, or they can accept reality. Of course, it's also possible that future legislation will do them in anyway.

The 6-6 plan is backed by the SEC commissioner, ND, the PAC and MWC. I seriously doubt it will not be accepted.

ACC will like it as it puts pressure on ND. B1G will like it as it hurts ND.

If you go to 8 its not going to enough at-large bids. Go to 16 and no reward for finishing the season in the top 4. It sounds very much like the sweet spot.

I don't see how this does anything but help ND and their independent status. They just went from competing with everyone including conference champions for 4 spots to competing with the bottom 4 conference champions for 6 spots. They really do not care that they don't qualify for a first round bye since they don't have to play a CCG.

If anything this tells the ACC any off chance or hope you had of ND joining for football is dead.

I disagree because they have a much higher bar to get in than the ACC champ which only needs to be Top 6.

ACC champ could be ranked 30, 40, 50 even behind a G5 champ and still get into the playoff.

ACC is tailor made for ND, they would be among the three strongest programs with Clemson and Florida State.

No, you are mistaken.

Nothing about this deal does a thing to move ND one inch closer to football conference membership.

With six at large bids, it does exactly the opposite. It cements ND's independence indefinitely.

ND is happy with this deal, obviously, with Jack Swarbrick on the Committee.

(06-11-2021 02:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 02:08 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 06:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  3) Mystified as to why top 4 conference champs would get byes, not the 4 highest ranked teams. Makes no sense, imo.

This is college football. They don't design systems from first principles, they take previous examples and make kludgy rules to fix particular problems.

Lately, there have been years where Alabama could maybe lose the SEC title game and still be top 4. I'm pretty sure that's the reason for the "only conference champs are eligible for byes" rule. If Alabama wants the bye, they have to show up for the SEC title game. The Powers That Be do NOT want the conference title games to become like the conference basketball tournaments, with John Calipari saying "we don't hang 3 letter banners at Kentucky."

(On the other hand, the other team in the SEC title game is pretty much a lock for one of the six at-large spots, so maybe they're not as fired up for the SEC title game. But that's a future problem, to be addressed next cycle with a new kludge)

Yeah i get that, but it still makes no sense. Rankings will surely reflect if you won a conference or not, so it is just plain weird.

Is there any other system used anywhere in which lower seeds get byes over higher seeds? Any sport?

In MLB, you have to win your division to avoid the "wild card" game.

In the NFL, the divisional champs are seeded ahead of wild card teams with superior records in the same conference.

So there's precedence rewards winning a division or conference instead of the best teams getting higher seeds or byes.

(06-11-2021 02:45 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 02:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 02:08 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 06:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  3) Mystified as to why top 4 conference champs would get byes, not the 4 highest ranked teams. Makes no sense, imo.

This is college football. They don't design systems from first principles, they take previous examples and make kludgy rules to fix particular problems.

Lately, there have been years where Alabama could maybe lose the SEC title game and still be top 4. I'm pretty sure that's the reason for the "only conference champs are eligible for byes" rule. If Alabama wants the bye, they have to show up for the SEC title game. The Powers That Be do NOT want the conference title games to become like the conference basketball tournaments, with John Calipari saying "we don't hang 3 letter banners at Kentucky."

(On the other hand, the other team in the SEC title game is pretty much a lock for one of the six at-large spots, so maybe they're not as fired up for the SEC title game. But that's a future problem, to be addressed next cycle with a new kludge)

Yeah i get that, but it still makes no sense. Rankings will surely reflect if you won a conference or not, so it is just plain weird.

Is there any other system used anywhere in which lower seeds get byes over higher seeds? Any sport?

The NBA used to give higher seeds (minimum top 4) to division champs but changed that in 2016.

And before that up to 2006 division winners were guaranteed top 3 seeds. The Memphis Grizzlies and Dallas Mavericks got screwed over by it and caused the NBA to change the rule.

(06-11-2021 11:25 AM)epasnoopy Wrote:  If the G5 conference commissioners are doing anything besides simply agreeing to this new plan and being grateful that we get one spot then they have no spines.

Accepting this plan will not lead to every FBS champion getting a spot in the playoff somewhere down the road.

We either demand it now or it's not happening later.

The new playoff system would invite the top six FBS conference champions. A G5 conference school has the same opportunity as a power conference school to fill those six slots. No one is given anything. You have to earn it. Obviously, at least one slot will go to a G5 conference school and there are the six at-large berths available. It seems that you are insecure about the G5 conferences being able to compete with the power conferences and want a playoff system that will give the G5 conference champions participation slots.

(06-11-2021 03:28 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 11:25 AM)epasnoopy Wrote:  If the G5 conference commissioners are doing anything besides simply agreeing to this new plan and being grateful that we get one spot then they have no spines.

Accepting this plan will not lead to every FBS champion getting a spot in the playoff somewhere down the road.

We either demand it now or it's not happening later.

The new playoff system would invite the top six FBS conference champions. A G5 conference school has the same opportunity as a power conference school to fill those six slots. No one is given anything. You have to earn it. Obviously, at least one slot will go to a G5 conference school and there are the six at-large berths available. It seems that you are insecure about the G5 conferences being able to compete with the power conferences and want a playoff system that will give the G5 conference champions participation slots.

I have to laugh at your pie-in-the-sky "G5 has the same opportunity to fill those six slots". When has a G5 ever been ranked in the top 6 of the playoff rankings? Never. You have biased people ranking these teams. So no, it's not the "same opportunity". Any G5 team getting into this current proposal will be ranked 6th and no higher every time. As for the six at-large spots, those will pretty much be filled with extra SEC and Big 10 teams.

In 2018, an undefeated UCF team only made it as high as 8th in the playoff rankings.

In 2017, an undefeated UCF team only made it as high as 12th in the playoff rankings.

In 2016, an undefeated WMU team only made it as high as 15th in the playoff rankings.

(06-11-2021 04:05 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 03:28 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 11:25 AM)epasnoopy Wrote:  If the G5 conference commissioners are doing anything besides simply agreeing to this new plan and being grateful that we get one spot then they have no spines.

Accepting this plan will not lead to every FBS champion getting a spot in the playoff somewhere down the road.

We either demand it now or it's not happening later.

The new playoff system would invite the top six FBS conference champions. A G5 conference school has the same opportunity as a power conference school to fill those six slots. No one is given anything. You have to earn it. Obviously, at least one slot will go to a G5 conference school and there are the six at-large berths available. It seems that you are insecure about the G5 conferences being able to compete with the power conferences and want a playoff system that will give the G5 conference champions participation slots.

I have to laugh at your pie-in-the-sky "G5 has the same opportunity to fill those six slots". When has a G5 ever been ranked in the top 6 of the playoff rankings? Never. You have biased people ranking these teams. So no, it's not the "same opportunity". Any G5 team getting into this current proposal will be ranked 6th and no higher every time. As for the six at-large spots, those will pretty much be filled with extra SEC and Big 10 teams.

In 2018, an undefeated UCF team only made it as high as 8th in the playoff rankings.

In 2017, an undefeated UCF team only made it as high as 12th in the playoff rankings.

In 2016, an undefeated WMU team only made it as high as 15th in the playoff rankings.

I'm getting me a bracelet you don't understand how this works. You realize that in this system, all three of those teams would have been in the playoffs?

It's not "conference champion ranked in the top six".
It's "six highest rated conference champions"
So mathematically there's one G5 guaranteed in the playoffs every year. Yes they will not be ranked as highly as the P5 champions. But they'll be in the first round games..
#8 UCF would have hosted s playoff game.