Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
Author Message
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,966
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1935
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #41
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 02:07 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Very surprised by the proposal (and that so many powers that be like it). Not perfect, but I am very enthusiastic about the format. Biggest critique is the guaranteed byes to four highest ranked conference champions. However, with how ND has fared in the CFP, I don't think not being a top-4 seed will really hurt them.

I always thought playoff expansion was inevitable, but not immediately to 12 teams. I'm glad the committee saw the payout and revenue potential to networks (other than ESPN) to seize.

My biggest critique would be---If your going to create a whole additional round by adding that jump from 8 to 12---why not take full advantage of the additional round by making it 16 total teams?
06-10-2021 02:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RUScarlets Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,212
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #42
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
LOL.... how many B1G afficianados called High 6 with no AQ? I was skeptical of unranked clubs like Oregon getting in as a P6 AQ. I guess the G5 crowd can start celebrating.

However, this is the road block I see with the Presidents:

"Teams 5-12 would play each other in the first round on the home field of the higher-ranked team. The quarterfinals and semifinals would be played in bowl games and the national championship game would remain at a neutral site."

Untenable.
(This post was last modified: 06-10-2021 02:23 PM by RUScarlets.)
06-10-2021 02:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
e-parade Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 534
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 56
I Root For: UMass
Location:
Post: #43
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 01:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 01:25 PM)stever20 Wrote:  this means Notre Dame could never get a bye.

It does. And Notre Dame AD Swarbrick is on the four-person committee that is recommending this plan!

Wondering if that's a way so that they'll basically be guaranteed an extra home game, and likely against one of the weakest at-larges, so they can get a win in the playoffs most years they're good (meaning 0 losses or 1 loss...hell maybe even 2 losses in some years).


Didn't expect a "Top 6" scenario there, but I like it.
06-10-2021 02:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 7,718
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 290
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #44
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
I’m surprised they’re not maximizing conference championship games. Essentially the only drama is to spoil a team’s season and not to guarantee anything.

What if the Pac, ACC, and American all suffer upsets to unranked teams in the CCG? I guess the drama comes from the potential champs of the MWC, MAC, C-USA, and Sun Belt vs the unranked champs from the aforementioned leagues.

Wow! What a headache ranking a bunch of unranked teams!
(This post was last modified: 06-10-2021 02:19 PM by esayem.)
06-10-2021 02:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,966
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1935
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #45
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 02:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m curious what the payout model will be. I assume your conference gets extra money for each at-large selection, but how much money?

What happens in a season like 2020, when the PAC 12 is left out? Do they not receive any playoff money or do they get the equivalent of a G5?

Given how the proposal is worded and constructed (looks like the anti-trust lawyers had some input)---I have to think every champ autobid has to pay the same amount and every wildcard has to pay the same amount. There must be another mechanism they will use to make sure the P5 get the lions share---and that may be simply sheer weight of numbers. The P5 will almost surely fill the vast majority of the bracket every year.
(This post was last modified: 06-10-2021 02:23 PM by Attackcoog.)
06-10-2021 02:21 PM
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: #46
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 01:52 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 01:25 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  This is a dream scenario for Notre Dame. And BYU. 6 at-large bids for them to take!

Notre Dame for sure, possibly BYU if they have fewer than two losses. Most of those six at large will be the runner ups will come from the SEC, B10 and possibly the other three P5 schools if it is the right brand.

The Indy’s not name Notre Dame and BYU are going to have to run the table. It will be interesting to see how not having a CCG hurts them in rankings going forward

I don't believe that BYU or any other non-P5 team could earn a #12 ranking and a potential at-large bid without going undefeated.

Coastal Carolina went 11-0 in 2020 and yet were only ranked #12, behind multiple P5 teams with 2 or 3 losses (Oklahoma (2), Florida (3), Georgia (2), and Iowa St. (3).

BYU went 10-1 in 2020, and was ranked #16th. One loss may be enough to knock a non-P5 team out of the hunt for an at-large bid.

None of the non-P5 teams with 1 loss in 2019 were ranked higher than #17th.

Houston went 12-1 in 2015 and was ranked #18.

UCF, Fresno St., and Northern Illinois all finished at 11-1 or 12-1 in 2013, but none were ranked higher than #15th.

Even a 13-0 non-P5 may not be able to earn a #12 ranking (13-0 Western Michigan was ranked #15th in 2016).

.

Dating back to 2013, no non-P5 team with one loss has ever been ranked in the top #12 after the final week of the regular season.

It thus seems that BYU will have a strong incentive to join a conference, since that would make it theoretically possible for a 1-loss BYU team to make it into the College Football Playoffs.

NOTE: The only time that any BYU team in the history of the program (dating back to 1922) ever went undefeated was in 1984, when they went 13-0 and won the national championship. In contrast, at least 8 BYU teams have finished the regular season with a single loss. Thus, they've been 8 times as likely to have a 1-loss team as they've had to have an undefeated team.

This would seem sufficient evidence to prompt BYU to join a conference if they want to compete for a national championship.
06-10-2021 02:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,634
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 140
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #47
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
From a competition standpoint, there's no reason in the eyes of Oklahoma or Texas to go elsewhere or expand the XII. Stand pat and your champion will almost assuredly be in the playoff.
06-10-2021 02:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
e-parade Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 534
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 56
I Root For: UMass
Location:
Post: #48
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 02:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 02:07 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Very surprised by the proposal (and that so many powers that be like it). Not perfect, but I am very enthusiastic about the format. Biggest critique is the guaranteed byes to four highest ranked conference champions. However, with how ND has fared in the CFP, I don't think not being a top-4 seed will really hurt them.

I always thought playoff expansion was inevitable, but not immediately to 12 teams. I'm glad the committee saw the payout and revenue potential to networks (other than ESPN) to seize.

My biggest critique would be---If your going to create a whole additional round by adding that jump from 8 to 12---why not take full advantage of the additional round by making it 16 total teams?

Someone mentioned it earlier, but it might actually be so they can keep conference tie-ins to the big bowl games. If you give the top 4 champs a bye, it'll almost certainly allow you to always have a B1G or P12 team in the Rose Bowl and such.
06-10-2021 02:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,940
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 678
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #49
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
My gawd.

The powers that be must really love that freaking CFP committee even more than I thought. Brutal - I agree with Attackcoog on that point.

I'd be really interested to see how the Big Ten and Pac-12 react to this proposal here (as they weren't part of the working group).

I have no idea why the top 4 byes suddenly all need to be conference champs, either... and that the ND AD was part of the committee that actually signed off on it! That one honestly bothers me more than the "top 6 conference champs" rule (which I don't agree with, but somewhat understand if they feel there's a legal reason). The top 4 ought to be the top 4 regardless of whether they're a conference champ, independent, or conference runner-up.
06-10-2021 02:25 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,922
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 308
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #50
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 01:34 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m not a fan of the idea that the top 4 champs get the byes. If a non-champ is in the top 4, they deserve that 1st round bye.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but it’s not fair to a 12-0 ND team to get seeded 5th on the grounds that they lack a CCG trophy.

That's their choice - they were in the ACC in 2020, so clearly it CAN work for them, when it is to their advantage
06-10-2021 02:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,966
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1935
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #51
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 02:18 PM)esayem Wrote:  I’m surprised they’re not maximizing conference championship games. Essentially the only drama is to spoil a team’s season and not to guarantee anything.

What if the Pac, ACC, and American all suffer upsets to unranked teams in the CCG? I guess the drama comes from the potential champs of the MWC, MAC, C-USA, and Sun Belt vs the unranked champs from the aforementioned leagues.

Wow! What a headache ranking a bunch of unranked teams!

Yup. Its clear they avoided giving specific conference auto-bids for two reasons.

1) Avoid anti-trust issues.

2) Avoid a low or unranked team making the playoff by virtue of a CCG upset.

Frankly---I like the idea of a team coming out of nowhere to make the playoff via a CCG upset. I understand the logic behind preventing that from happening---but to me---it takes away a lot of the drama that makes athletic competition so interesting.
(This post was last modified: 06-10-2021 03:22 PM by Attackcoog.)
06-10-2021 02:27 PM
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: #52
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 02:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 02:07 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Very surprised by the proposal (and that so many powers that be like it). Not perfect, but I am very enthusiastic about the format. Biggest critique is the guaranteed byes to four highest ranked conference champions. However, with how ND has fared in the CFP, I don't think not being a top-4 seed will really hurt them.

I always thought playoff expansion was inevitable, but not immediately to 12 teams. I'm glad the committee saw the payout and revenue potential to networks (other than ESPN) to seize.

My biggest critique would be---If your going to create a whole additional round by adding that jump from 8 to 12---why not take full advantage of the additional round by making it 16 total teams?

Excellent point. Two more games with multiple millions of viewers would generate a fair amount of revenue for all concerned.

In addition, it would be much more inclusive and thus much more similar to the highly-successful NCAA tournament formula. More games = more drama and more viewers glued to their computers.
06-10-2021 02:28 PM
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: #53
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 02:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The top 4 ought to be the top 4 regardless of whether they're a conference champ, independent, or conference runner-up.

Disagree, Frank, and here's why:

The goal should be to put the most competitive ball games possible on people's TV screens.

Competitive games get a lot more viewership, and generate a lot more revenue for the networks, conferences, and teams.

Giving a bye to the Alabamas, Ohio States, Oklahomas, and Clemsons doesn't make the games more competitive.

It does the exact opposite - - it makes them less competitive.


The entire reason why the whole nation is up in arms about wanting to ditch the current format is that they're sick of watching the same few teams dominate the CFP year after year after year.

.

This may seem counter-intuitive, but it will make a certain amount of sense if you read it with an open-mind:


If the success of the College Football Playoffs, in terms of not just total viewers, but of viewers who watch the games most of the way through hinges on making the games as competitive as possible:

The most effective way to maximize the competitiveness of the games in a 12-team CFP would be to give the first round byes (and home field advantage) to the four lowest-ranked teams.

The intent would be to even the playing field to the extent possible.

Most of the lowest-ranked teams would still be likely to be blown out in the second half, but at least they might be able to keep their games interesting through much of the first half.

There's also another rationale to doing everything possible to even the playing field:

It would force the elite teams to play that much harder and give a truly memorable performance if they want to win the national championship.

That's what everybody wants to see. Nobody wants to watch the elite teams win the championship in a cakewalk.

.

Anyone who has trouble wrapping their minds around the idea only has to reflect back on when they played sandlot, playground, or backyard football and tried to choose up sides in a way that would give both teams an even chance of winning.

I hope that most of you guys can remember back that far, and that you played tackle football (no pads) when you were 10 or 12.
(This post was last modified: 06-10-2021 02:52 PM by JamesTKirk.)
06-10-2021 02:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,940
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 678
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #54
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 02:28 PM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 02:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 02:07 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Very surprised by the proposal (and that so many powers that be like it). Not perfect, but I am very enthusiastic about the format. Biggest critique is the guaranteed byes to four highest ranked conference champions. However, with how ND has fared in the CFP, I don't think not being a top-4 seed will really hurt them.

I always thought playoff expansion was inevitable, but not immediately to 12 teams. I'm glad the committee saw the payout and revenue potential to networks (other than ESPN) to seize.

My biggest critique would be---If your going to create a whole additional round by adding that jump from 8 to 12---why not take full advantage of the additional round by making it 16 total teams?

Excellent point. Two more games with multiple millions of viewers would generate a fair amount of revenue for all concerned.

In addition, it would be much more inclusive and thus much more similar to the highly-successful NCAA tournament formula. More games = more drama and more viewers glued to their computers.

I think there's a point of diminishing returns both in terms of the value of each playoff game plus preserving the value of regular season games (which is where the P5 make the vast majority of their revenue).

While 16 teams would provide for a full 8 games for the first round, there ends up being a real time slot challenge. The CFP isn't intended to be like the NCAA Tournament where there might be 4 first round games going on at the exact same time. Instead, each CFP playoff game needs its own exclusive time slot, which may mean that 8 games over the course of a first round weekend where you need to schedule games in abnormal time slots (or stretched out over several days) really *isn't* much more valuable than 4 games over the course of a first round weekend (and might holistically detract from regular season football TV revenue in the way that the NCAA Tournament has clearly detracted from regular season basketball TV revenue).
06-10-2021 02:46 PM
Visit this user's website 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: #55
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
NFL reseeds.

College should too.
06-10-2021 02:47 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: #56
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 12:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Something for everyone, that appears to be the idea.

"6 highest-ranked conference champs" -- means at least three things.
(1) Open to any FBS conference champs, not just P5.
(2) Anyone who is paranoid about the possibility of CCG upsets will know that the never-gonna-happen-but-let's-pretend-it-will scenario of an 8-4 team winning a division and upsetting a 12-0 team in a CCG doesn't automatically put the 8-4 team in the playoff.
(3) Leaves the door open for the committee to choose a big name team (coughcough-Ohio State-coughcough) that didn't win its CCG for the playoff over a team from the same conference that doesn't have the same brand power.

"6 at large teams" -- means the SEC will approve because they think they'll get 4 of those 6.

Now all they have to do is take the bowl leeches' tentacles out of the playoff and they'll be good to go.

Yes, please on that last part. I am glad at least one round will be on campus. Hopefully eventually they will realize that this makes significantly more sense then sending fans to Atlanta, Miami, and then Los Angeles in a 4 week span in January or whatever it ends up being.
06-10-2021 02:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
usffan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,769
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 623
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #57
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 02:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  My biggest critique would be---If your going to create a whole additional round by adding that jump from 8 to 12---why not take full advantage of the additional round by making it 16 total teams?

We addressed this before. There's a finite window, and they want to maximize the money they're going to get by televising these games. 4 windows - Thursday night, Saturday noon, Saturday 3:30, Saturday 8 pm. If you go to 8 games, they'll start to cannibalize the ratings from one another. 4 games in a weekend is the theoretical max you could get, which is why I thought 12 was going to be the number all along...

USFFan
06-10-2021 02:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,940
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 678
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #58
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 02:43 PM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 02:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The top 4 ought to be the top 4 regardless of whether they're a conference champ, independent, or conference runner-up.

Disagree, Frank, and here's why:

The goal should be to put the most competitive ball games possible on people's TV screens.

Competitive games get a lot more viewership, and generate a lot more revenue for the networks, conferences, and teams.

Giving a bye to the Alabamas, Ohio States, Oklahomas, and Clemsons doesn't make the games more competitive.

It does the exact opposite - - it makes them less competitive.

The entire reason why the whole nation is up in arms about wanting to ditch the current format is that they're sick of watching the same few teams dominate the CFP year after year after year.

.

This may seem counter-intuitive, but it will make a certain amount of sense if you read it with an open-mind:


If the success of the College Football Playoffs, in terms of not just total viewers, but of viewers who watch the games most of the way through hinges on making the games as competitive as possible:

The most effective way to maximize the competitiveness of the games in a 12-team CFP would be to give the first round byes (and home field advantage) to the four lowest-ranked teams.

The intent would be to even the playing field to the extent possible.

Frankly, the lowest-ranked teams would still be likely to be blown out, but at least they might be able to keep their games interesting through much of the first half.

There's also another rationale to doing everything possible to even the playing field:

It would force the elite teams to play that harder and give that much better of a performance if they want to win the national championship.

That's what everybody wants to see. Nobody wants to watch the elite teams win the championship in a cakewalk.

The lowest-ranked teams get a bye over the highest ranked teams simply for entertainment purposes???

I'm not even sure how to respond to this other than the last thing that we need to see is teams actually *tank* games in order to get the perverse advantage of having to play fewer games by being lower ranked. That would be pretty awful.
06-10-2021 02:50 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,940
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 678
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #59
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 02:47 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  NFL reseeds.

College should too.

There totally needs to be reseeding - I don't understand that line of thinking from the working group, either.

That should particularly be the case when there would presumably be 2 to 3 weeks between the first round and the quarterfinal bowl games circa New Year's Day. There isn't even a timing issue involved on that front.
06-10-2021 02:51 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TIGER-PAUL Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,549
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 34
I Root For: PITT
Location:
Post: #60
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
Still basically a 12 team BCS ranking with some weight for conf champs.
06-10-2021 02:56 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.