the selection committee will need a big overhaul, like mybe way more g5 members

The SEC could get four teams the playoff. Last year Bama, T A&M, Florida, and Georgia all would have been heavily considered. That will be interesting to watch.

This is fantastic news for college football and for those of us not in the power conferences group. That said, I wonder if the proposed format will hold to form through the vetting and eventual approval process? I'm also interested in how quickly this will replace the current Alabama/Clemson/Ohio St+1 format?

Forgot to mention, but if this version goes through it will be interesting to see how this affects recruiting leading up to and after it's implemented.

(06-10-2021 07:03 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  This is fantastic news for college football and for those of us not in the power conferences group. That said, I wonder if the proposed format will hold to form through the vetting and eventual approval process? I'm also interested in how quickly this will replace the current Alabama/Clemson/Ohio St+1 format?

The “everyone gets a participation trophy” generation.

Basically it's going to take top 10, maybe top 9 ranking or conference champion.

I think G5 is going to howl if you see the AAC champ ranked like say #15 and the MWC at #16 or 17 and both 11-1 records.

I do think this will break the NFL bound top kids from the near monopoly of choosing among 'bama, tOSU and Clemson, as about a dozen new schools will be in serious contention for a playoff spot. There are more viable choices to get that exposure that those three monopolize.

(06-10-2021 07:38 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  I do think this will break the NFL bound top kids from the near monopoly of choosing among 'bama, tOSU and Clemson, as about a dozen new schools will be in serious contention for a playoff spot. There are more viable choices to get that exposure that those three monopolize.

correct, top recruits that find themselves warming the benches at said schools will transfer quickly to the new dozen schools that have a real chance

PicksUp: who created those trophies?

(06-10-2021 02:59 PM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  Y'all, "6 Highest rated conference champions" is a way to do the "Power 5 + 1 Gang of 5" in a legalese way to prevent anticompetitive lawsuits (since technically all conferences are equal partners in the FBS, why do these 5 get 5 bids but these 5 get only 1? It's a way to circumvent any of those potential issues)

Yes. And not just the lawsuits, but also to get the extra games required through NCAA Division I. There's a lot of things that "autonomy" gets to decide, but adding two games to the post-season FBS schedule allowance has to go through the Division. There's a lot of weight to a "procedural fairness is important" argument, when the voters are a bunch of University Presidents.

Pro forma both two Go5 Champions and a Go5 school with a bye into the second round are both possible under this proposal, even if de facto no Go5 school is going to expect the Committee to actually rank schools that way.


_______________

(06-10-2021 01:23 PM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 01:08 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  This will be the P5 conference champs plus the highest rated G5 champ plus 6 at large teams from the P5 most years. Once in a blue moon, a second G5 team may make it.

If you went to 16, you could include all 10 conference champions and still have 6 at larges. No byes that way. Seems simpler and all inclusive.

I assume that "the highest rated G5 champ" would be:

The champion of the highest-rated G5 conference, rather than:

The highest-rated G5 team that won a conference championship.

But jed, why would you assume that it means that, when it would have to be phrased differently to mean "the champions of the top six rated conferences".

Indeed, since it is describing the de facto outcome of a proposed system where its the six highest rated teams that are champions of their conference, the de facto outcome perforce must be the highest-rated Go5 team that won a conference championship.

_________________

(06-10-2021 07:55 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  PicksUp: who created those trophies?

Indeed, the participation trophies were created for the parents of the participating kids, so "the participation trophy generation" ought to be referring to the generation of the parents.

(06-10-2021 07:28 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 07:03 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  This is fantastic news for college football and for those of us not in the power conferences group. That said, I wonder if the proposed format will hold to form through the vetting and eventual approval process? I'm also interested in how quickly this will replace the current Alabama/Clemson/Ohio St+1 format?

The “everyone gets a participation trophy” generation.

Nah. It's the "big money from advertising and sponorships filling the university coffers generation." Seriously, it provides a legit path for more teams to win a chip. How many teams in the college hoops, baseball and hockey tournaments qualify again?

(06-10-2021 07:28 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 07:03 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  This is fantastic news for college football and for those of us not in the power conferences group. That said, I wonder if the proposed format will hold to form through the vetting and eventual approval process? I'm also interested in how quickly this will replace the current Alabama/Clemson/Ohio St+1 format?

The “everyone gets a participation trophy” generation.

You’re just mad UTEP will never sniff the CFP in any format.

(06-10-2021 07:35 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Basically it's going to take top 10, maybe top 9 ranking or conference champion.

I think G5 is going to howl if you see the AAC champ ranked like say #15 and the MWC at #16 or 17 and both 11-1 records.

Both still may be higher than the PAC champ

*IF* this goes through it could be the straw to break Notre Dame's back on whether or not they need to be ACC for football or not....

If this system had been in place for the past 25 years, TCU would have made the playoffs 7 times (2000, 2005; 2008; 2009; 2010; 2011; 2014) and, although we probably would have lost to someone each time (but might have made the CG once or twice), it would have made a tremendous difference in recruiting and fan interest and everything good associated with college football. And it's not just TCU - dozens of other schools can make similar claims. Instead of being told every single year by some committee of old men that you just don't deserve a chance because of ever-changing "reasons" that can never be challenged, it would have been decided on the field. Instead of the annual Bama/Ohio State/Clemson+1 show, it would have Cinderellas and other solid programs from all over the country directly involved every single year. And it will clearly make more money for just about everyone.

And it really isn't all that different from the current system; upon which it would build.

(06-10-2021 12:35 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

I hope they go with a 16 team playoff consisting of 10 conference champions and six at large.

(06-10-2021 08:33 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  *IF* this goes through it could be the straw to break Notre Dame's back on whether or not they need to be ACC for football or not....

"if" this goes through then we will need the ACC for our non-football sports. Therefore, nothing changes, because we're happy with the result. Our AD was on the committee.

(06-10-2021 08:33 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  *IF* this goes through it could be the straw to break Notre Dame's back on whether or not they need to be ACC for football or not....

IF this goes through, with six spots for an independent to aim for, it allows ND to continue to be independent indefinitely ...

... that's not really what "the straw that broke the camel's back" means as a phrase.

(06-10-2021 06:21 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 06:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  Just because a committee made this recommendation that doesn't necessarily mean it will be accepted. Are the 130 university presidents cut out of the decision making process? A lot of the details that haven't come out yet could be problematic for some of them.

If first round losers don't get to play in a bowl, that's a lot of fans (that is, donors) who won't get to attend a postseason game at an attractive winter vacation destination, and players who won't get their swag bags.

What fans/donors/anyone would rather play in the Outback Bowl vs the first round of a playoff?

The ones that don't want their season to end in mid-December at a game they didn't get to attend if they were the lower seeded team.

(06-10-2021 06:36 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  the selection committee will need a big overhaul, like mybe way more g5 members

Why?