(06-10-2021 08:48 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(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.

And who automatically assume that their team will lose simply because it is the lower seeded team.

(06-10-2021 08:29 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(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 system had been in place in 2016, the Pac-12 would have had three teams in the playoffs and Western Michigan would have gotten in over the AAC and MWC teams. If this system is approved, it will be good for the Pac-12 and could be really good for the G5 schools. There is almost no excuse for a power conference to have no teams make it.

Just for fun I looked at 2017 and 2015 CFP final polls. Using that it would have created the following:

2017

1. Clemson against winner of USC/Penn State
2. OU against winner of Auburn/Miami
3. Georgia against winner of Wisky/Washington
4. Ohio State against winner of Bama/UCF

2015

1. Clemson against winner of ND/FSU
2. Bama against winner of Ohio State/UNC
3. Michigan St. against winner of Stanford/TCU
4. Oklahoma against winner of Iowa/Houston

In two years 20 different schools and only Clemson, Ohio State, Alabama, and Oklahoma are repeats.

I just looked at 2019:

1. LSU against winner of Wisconsin/Florida
2. Ohio State against winner of Baylor/Penn State
3. Clemson against winner of Oregon/Utah
4. OU against winner Georgia/Memphis

This is now 25 different schools over 36 spots.

Hell lets go for 48 using 2013

1. Florida State against winner of Ohio State/Mizzou
2. Auburn against winner of Baylor/SC
3. Michigan State against winner of Oregon/OU
4. Stanford against winner of Bama/UCF

Adding the last set only adds three new teams so 28 teams will have had 48 spots.

(06-10-2021 08:58 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 08:48 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(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.

And who automatically assume that their team will lose simply because it is the lower seeded team.

I didn't assume a team would lose because it's the lower seeded team. One team will lose in every first round game, and their fans won't get to play after Christmas. It's not an either/or choice.

(06-10-2021 01:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 12:59 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Interestingly, they went with 6+6 instead of the 100% guaranteed certainty of 5+1+6 that Frank always talked about.

That surprises me---but that language is also the only way to avoid anti-trust issues. If I really wanted a guarantee for the P5 champs----I might have gone with the top 7 champs. I cant imagine any P5 champ finishing the season 8th out of 10 champs.

The thing I HATE HATE HATE about this plan is we are right back to placing it all in the hands of the Committee. If this is the plan---fine. BUT---the Committee structure MUST be overahauled. It must be changed to a 10 member group with each FBS conference appointing one member each. If they are not going to correct the ridiculous imbalance in the committee membership, then just get rid of the committee and go back to the old BCS computers/human poll system. That system was far more legitimate that the strictly brand driven Committee currently in place.

Agree. Hate having the committee so involved. They choose the 4 byes as well as choosing all 6 champs and all 6 wildcards. One of the beauties of a 5-1-2 (or 5-1-6) is it cut down the importance of the committee.

The CFP show will actually be meaningful to catch and the intrigue and possibilities will be deep.

Multiple paths for the big names to get to the playoff which could radically change week to week. Do they win out and make the title game or end up in the playoff without the title game?

AAC has multiple paths now besides presenting the highest rated G5 champion they could make it on their own merits. The same could be said of other G5 programs if they continue to develop. It could open a Miami Fl type run to the top of the polls since the system is a level playing field.

McMurphy said in a tweet as a byproduct 4-10 bowls are going to disappear. I suspect the 4 will be because of the 4 first round games. If all the champs are assigned at least an access bowl that would change the lineup significantly for the G5.

https://twitter.com/Brett_McMurphy/statu...7349232650

Payout is another question. Will the 10 conferences get a base payout such as $50 million with large bonuses tied to appearances? Will the G5 revenue split be out the door?

A 50 million base plus 50 million per playoff appearance sets the distribution just above 1 billion. Then additional academic money and independents with a 2.5 million base distro if the overall dollar value is 1.2 billion up from 600 million currently.

Quote:Coffers: They'll be full -- or fuller at FBS schools. Industry sources have estimated an expanded bracket to be worth two or three times more than the current $600 million annually. The question is whether ESPN is willing the tear up the current deal with five years to go on it and renegotiate for a 12-team field.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ps-losers/

The latest the Rose Bowl (and QFs generally) will be is the First Monday of January. MLK Day is the 3rd Monday of January. Play the Semifinals on the 2nd Monday of January (no MNF) or the preceding Saturday if time allows and you will have nice even spacing between those 3 rounds.

Of course, they want to move 1 QF and 1 SF to adjacent days. If they do so when the QFs are the 1st Monday of the year then that will result in some teams having only 6 days between games.

For the campus-round. Could they play those games as far as a week apart from one another? Double-header with Army-Navy, game on Tuesday, Friday, and then again the next Saturday? Probably not.

Overall makes me feel like this is a LOT of games. Big change (potentially) for College Football.

(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?

12 gets it close to 10% of the teams and 1/6th of the P5. That makes it a little closer to other championships and other divisions. 8 would still be very distinct from how FCS, Div. II and Div. III do it. If you go to 16, you do get a lot of 3 and 4 loss teams. Also, you increase the possibility that P5 champs miss New Year's Day. 12 is a better starting point than 16.

(06-10-2021 03:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 03:27 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 03:07 PM)solohawks Wrote:  It's astonishing to me ND signed off on a plan where they were permanently disadvantaged.....unless

This is the most intriguing aspect of the proposal. Having CCG winners seeded 1-4 ensures geographic and conference diversity in the quarterfinal round. Maybe they were worried about too many teams from one region in the quarterfinals hurting the ratings.

The only thing that I can think of here is that they're using the bowls as quarterfinals and they're essentially maximizing some semblance of tie-ins there (e.g. the Rose Bowl would always get a top 4 Big Ten or Pac-12 champ with the higher ranked going to the Rose if both leagues are in the top 4). Maybe ND sees this as similar to the current Contract Bowl system or BCS AQ system and that's a concession on their part.

Otherwise, from a competitive standpoint, I believe that a top 4 Notre Dame (or any other school) should get a top 4 seed just as they would in the current system. Frankly, it would be even more important in the new system since a bye would now be involved.

I like the champs getting the byes. 1) They have accomplished something. 2) It is less dependent on the committee who may arbitrarily decide one conference is stronger than another. We have plenty of proof that they really can't differentiate that much between the top teams.

(06-10-2021 02:51 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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.

If they are using bowls, there is a reason for no reseeding. People can go ahead and book trips. If you win, you know where you go.

(06-10-2021 04:01 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Interesting thing here is that they are saying that Bowls will be both quarter and semi final sites. I’m curious how that will work because the Rose is pretty dead set on being on NYD, seeing as there’s a big parade and all. I see two ways this could go:

The Rose is locked in as a permanent quarterfinal site, while the other 5 alternate between being semis and quarter sites

Alternatively, I can see where 2 of the 6 NY6 bowls host two games when it’s their turn to be a semi final: an exhibition on/around NYD, and then the semifinal 7-10 days later. This would be similar to the later half of the BCS era, where there would be a Rose Bowl game and then a BCS NCG in Pasadena later in January.

Maybe a bowl like the Fiesta will WANT to be a semi and give up NYD.

(06-10-2021 08:34 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  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.

I think this aligns with what Bowlsby was saying. He wasn't JUST talking about conferences being left out. Alabama, Clemson and Ohio St. have had a HUGE recruiting boost from being in the playoffs so often. They are picking up top players anywhere.

(06-10-2021 11:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 04:01 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Interesting thing here is that they are saying that Bowls will be both quarter and semi final sites. I’m curious how that will work because the Rose is pretty dead set on being on NYD, seeing as there’s a big parade and all. I see two ways this could go:

The Rose is locked in as a permanent quarterfinal site, while the other 5 alternate between being semis and quarter sites

Alternatively, I can see where 2 of the 6 NY6 bowls host two games when it’s their turn to be a semi final: an exhibition on/around NYD, and then the semifinal 7-10 days later. This would be similar to the later half of the BCS era, where there would be a Rose Bowl game and then a BCS NCG in Pasadena later in January.

Maybe a bowl like the Fiesta will WANT to be a semi and give up NYD.

Maybe it goes this way (whiteboarding this off the top of my head):

(1) The 3 contract bowls are all permanent quarterfinals with tie-ins if their respective conference partners make the top 4: Rose gets the best top 4 Big Ten or Pac-12 champ, Sugar gets the best top 4 SEC or Big 12 champ, and Orange gets the best top 4 ACC champ (or Big Ten or SEC champ if they don’t make the Rose/Sugar).

(2) 1 access bowl is the fourth quarterfinal and the other 2 are semifinals, with the mix rotating each year.

(3) National championship game is bid out to a neutral site just like today.

(06-11-2021 12:05 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 08:34 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  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.

I think this aligns with what Bowlsby was saying. He wasn't JUST talking about conferences being left out. Alabama, Clemson and Ohio St. have had a HUGE recruiting boost from being in the playoffs so often. They are picking up top players anywhere.

The benefit for a 12-team playoff goes even deeper in my mind. Essentially, if a team is ranked in the top 25, it’s at least in *striking* distance of being in the playoff hunt. All of the sudden, being in the playoff race isn’t a complete fantasy for 95% of fan bases, but rather something that they all follow because there’s a true legitimate chance to make it. I mean, freaking Indiana would have made it to the CFP last year under this 12-team playoff system. There’s no hope for teams like Indiana or a G5 school in a 4-team playoff, but the system being proposed here opens it all up where everyone in college football at least can have the dream (more similar to college basketball). Making the top 12 will still very hard, but it’s not the insurmountable wall that the current CFP system is that most schools’ fan bases didn’t even think about them having a chance for the top 4.

I’ve always said this: the most powerful draw for any sports fan is when *your* team is a contender. Fans of contending teams then pay attention to many other games that could impact the fortunes of their own teams and it becomes a virtuous cycle that drives interest in the entire sport. That’s the basis of the NFL’s power. People don’t cheer for their conferences or for a big national game where they have no rooting interest. Instead, they cheer for their *own* teams. Just like politics, all sports fandom is local.

(06-11-2021 12:12 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Maybe it goes this way (whiteboarding this off the top of my head):

(1) The 3 contract bowls are all permanent quarterfinals with tie-ins if their respective conference partners make the top 4: Rose gets the best top 4 Big Ten or Pac-12 champ, Sugar gets the best top 4 SEC or Big 12 champ, and Orange gets the best top 4 ACC champ (or Big Ten or SEC champ if they don’t make the Rose/Sugar).

(2) 1 access bowl is the fourth quarterfinal and the other 2 are semifinals, with the mix rotating each year.

(3) National championship game is bid out to a neutral site just like today.

That would align with the quarterfinals being played on NYD. Could be that the NYD schedule, if this playoff is adopted, will be Orange-Rose-Sugar, with the fourth quarterfinal played on NYE and rotating with the semifinals among the Fiesta, Cotton, and Peach.

(06-10-2021 11:20 PM)bullet 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?

12 gets it close to 10% of the teams and 1/6th of the P5. That makes it a little closer to other championships and other divisions. 8 would still be very distinct from how FCS, Div. II and Div. III do it. If you go to 16, you do get a lot of 3 and 4 loss teams. Also, you increase the possibility that P5 champs miss New Year's Day. 12 is a better starting point than 16.

I dont know---the sweet 16 round of the tournament is pretty soild entertainment. Thats basically what it would be. The time frame for 12 and 16 is identical. You have to admit---with 8 hugely important games---that first weekend would be awesome.

(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....

Maybe---maybe not. Effectively, there are 4 "at large" slots in the current CFP system.

In the new system there are 6 "at large" slots. Thats already better for Notre Dame. Then consider that 6 of the top potential competitors for those 6 slots will be out because they will recieve "auto-bids" due to being one of the top 6 conference champs. Seems to me that even as a indy, the bar for playoff inclusion has been lowered significantly for Notre Dame. It used to be top 4. Now just making the top 10 gives you an excellent chance--and Notre Dame could theoretically get in ranked as low as #12 if everything fell just right.

(06-11-2021 12:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 12:05 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 08:34 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  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.

I think this aligns with what Bowlsby was saying. He wasn't JUST talking about conferences being left out. Alabama, Clemson and Ohio St. have had a HUGE recruiting boost from being in the playoffs so often. They are picking up top players anywhere.

The benefit for a 12-team playoff goes even deeper in my mind. Essentially, if a team is ranked in the top 25, it’s at least in *striking* distance of being in the playoff hunt. All of the sudden, being in the playoff race isn’t a complete fantasy for 95% of fan bases, but rather something that they all follow because there’s a true legitimate chance to make it. I mean, freaking Indiana would have made it to the CFP last year under this 12-team playoff system. There’s no hope for teams like Indiana or a G5 school in a 4-team playoff, but the system being proposed here opens it all up where everyone in college football at least can have the dream (more similar to college basketball). Making the top 12 will still very hard, but it’s not the insurmountable wall that the current CFP system is that most schools’ fan bases didn’t even think about them having a chance for the top 4.

I’ve always said this: the most powerful draw for any sports fan is when *your* team is a contender. Fans of contending teams then pay attention to many other games that could impact the fortunes of their own teams and it becomes a virtuous cycle that drives interest in the entire sport. That’s the basis of the NFL’s power. People don’t cheer for their conferences or for a big national game where they have no rooting interest. Instead, they cheer for their *own* teams. Just like politics, all sports fandom is local.

Exactly. Its why the new playoff system will be MUCH more popular than the current system. The current system is so exclusive and limited that many lost interest because they felt it would never involve their team (and for many---it would never even involve their conference!!).

(06-10-2021 09:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 08:58 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 08:48 PM)ken d Wrote:  ... 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.

And who automatically assume that their team will lose simply because it is the lower seeded team.

I didn't assume a team would lose because it's the lower seeded team. One team will lose in every first round game, and their fans won't get to play after Christmas. It's not an either/or choice.

Wasn't the reference to the game "they wouldn't get to attend" the bowl game that the lower seeded team wouldn't get to go to?

After all, those fans will have a chance to go to the First Round game if they wish to, so the 1st round game is not a game the fans of the lower seeded team would be unable to attend.

(06-11-2021 12:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I dont know---the sweet 16 round of the tournament is pretty soild entertainment. Thats basically what it would be. The time frame for 12 and 16 is identical. You have to admit---with 8 hugely important games---that first weekend would be awesome.

But it would definitely increase the number of mouths to feed more than it increases revenue, because that awesome eight game first weekend would see a lot of audience cannibalization between the different games. Four game in the weekend definitely increase the average viewership per game.