(06-11-2021 02:12 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(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.

Maybe—or maybe rather than losing audience in a blow out playoff game, folks simply Switch over to the other game that’s a barn burner. Does having multiple games on at a time adversely affect the popularity of the NCAA tournament? Not at all. That massive buffet of basketball draws interest from every corner of the country and is a national pastime. Now—imagine leveraging the same kind of broad appeal that the NCAA tournament engenders—but this time applying it to a sport that’s second only to the NFL in popularity.

Anything less than every conference champion getting a spot in the playoff is not good enough.

(06-10-2021 02:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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.

Right. There is still a possibility that can happen with a slew of CCG upsets, but it’s in the hands of the committee ranking system.

I am surprised the top ranked Independent isn’t given any concessions. It seems the conferences went hard into that to avoid possible defections. Imagine a future where Texas, Penn State, and USC can go it alone with an in-house broadcast team and their own legitimate network package. Without the advantage of securing a first round bye, this is less likely.

Also, I don’t see how this makes BYU want to join a conference. They’re either competing for one spot by winning a CCG with a conference schedule or 6 spots by going undefeated with a schedule they put together.

I would prefer a staright-12 system, but regarding points that have been made in the past around here:

1) I believe I have said a problem with P5 autobids and just one general autobid for the whole G5 is that it could create a legal issue, because it would formally treat P5 and G5 conferences differently, and maybe that idea influenced this proposal. This top six champs thing seems more defensible to this non-lawyer from a legal POV, lol.

2) Am glad there are no autobids for any particular conference champs, as that precludes a big CCG upset putting a 7-5 team in. This is also inconsistent with the notion of maximizing the value of P5 CCGs, because P5 CCG s will not be guaranteed play-in games for both participants as they would be under 5-1-2 or 5-1-6.

3) Mystified as to why top 4 conference champs would get byes, not the 4 highest ranked teams. Makes no sense, imo.

That said, this is just a proposal by the working committee, we do not know if it will be approved. It could be modified significantly by the full CFP membership or rejected entirely.

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

(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.

I could see that but I could also see the Sugar hosting a semi and the Peach hosting the SEC champ some years if the Sugar wants to host a semi.

I suppose it depends on what the bowls want.

Easiest way would be the current NY6 rotate between quarterfinals and semifinals, each hosting the semifinals once every three years and the quarterfinals twice every three years.

The Rose Bowl won't like not having games on New Year's Day but it's not unprecedented. I was actually in Los Angeles and got to see the Rose Parade in 2002. The Rose Bowl wasn't played on New Year's Day that year, it was played January 3 when it was the national championship. That was during the first cycles of the BCS before the "double hosting model". The same thing happened in 2006 (the great Vince Young/Texas vs. USC Rose Bowl national championship game). They certainly could insist on always having the quarterfinals. In this format, semifinals would be bigger games but quarterfinals have better calendar dates and have better chance of attracting tourism. With the 17 game NFL season and expanded 14 team NFL playoffs, it's possible Saturday and Sunday will be blocked and the Playoff semifinals will be stuck on weeknights (Monday and Tuesday?) If the semifinals were on Saturday/Sunday, they'll definitely be more attractive. A semifinal on a Tuesday night? If the six NY6 bowls got together and the Rose said they always want to be a quarterfinal, will the other five bowls agree to it if it means they get "stuck" with semifinals more often?

Well, I’m on board with the format. I like it. Since ND was involved and approved the setup, this should pass with the ease.
Essentially, the a G5 champ is in the playoffs with the possibility of more options to get more teams in.

Some thoughts on why only conference champs would be eligible for byes:

They’ve all already played 13 games, while at larges (save CCG losers) have not. I think this is meant to avoid situations where a quarter final pairs a team that has played 14 teams and is tired against a fresh 12 game team.

I think it makes it easier to assign quarterfinal bowls. Naturally, the winners of those conferences are going to want to play their quarterfinal in their conference’s traditional bowl. Big Ten and PAC 12 both in the top 4?—easy, that means one of the other P5 champs has their traditional bowl free so the lower ranked team assumes hosting duties for their bowl. (This begs the question as to which bowl the Big 12 will be tied to—their BCS era Fiesta Bowl or Texas/Oklahoma’s backyard Cotton Bowl?)

(06-11-2021 06:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I would prefer a staright-12 system, but regarding points that have been made in the past around here:

1) I believe I have said a problem with P5 autobids and just one general autobid for the whole G5 is that it could create a legal issue, because it would formally treat P5 and G5 conferences differently, and maybe that idea influenced this proposal. This top six champs thing seems more defensible to this non-lawyer from a legal POV, lol.

2) Am glad there are no autobids for any particular conference champs, as that precludes a big CCG upset putting a 7-5 team in. This is also inconsistent with the notion of maximizing the value of P5 CCGs, because P5 CCG s will not be guaranteed play-in games for both participants as they would be under 5-1-2 or 5-1-6.

3) Mystified as to why top 4 conference champs would get byes, not the 4 highest ranked teams. Makes no sense, imo.

That said, this is just a proposal by the working committee, we do not know if it will be approved. It could be modified significantly by the full CFP membership or rejected entirely.

Top 4 Conf champs getting bye is better. Much better shot for a USC or Oregon to beat a SEC division runner up in the Rose Bowl with an extra week of rest. However, I don’t think this setup will pass. When is the final year of the CFP as it is now? 2024?

(06-11-2021 03:31 AM)epasnoopy Wrote:  Anything less than every conference champion getting a spot in the playoff is not good enough.

Agreed 100%, why stop at 6, just do all 10... i wake up this morning thinking this proposal will empower the committee way beyond its original mandate
there’s something fishy going on, can’t smell it yet but look! stench is knocking on a gullible g5 door
Why is the sec pushing this, i don’t trust the sec at all , or is disney behind this in some sort of sadistic cannibal freak show and their henchmen are the freaking COMMITTEE... end of line

(06-11-2021 07:07 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Some thoughts on why only conference champs would be eligible for byes:

They’ve all already played 13 games, while at larges (save CCG losers) have not. I think this is meant to avoid situations where a quarter final pairs a team that has played 14 teams and is tired against a fresh 12 game team.

I think it makes it easier to assign quarterfinal bowls. Naturally, the winners of those conferences are going to want to play their quarterfinal in their conference’s traditional bowl. Big Ten and PAC 12 both in the top 4?—easy, that means one of the other P5 champs has their traditional bowl free so the lower ranked team assumes hosting duties for their bowl. (This begs the question as to which bowl the Big 12 will be tied to—their BCS era Fiesta Bowl or Texas/Oklahoma’s backyard Cotton Bowl?)

This.

If you don’t win a CCG (de facto play in game), you will have to play a play in game.

This setup will also work much better with the traditional bowl tie ins.

I was hoping for 5-1-2 becasue of the bowl tie ins and the importance of a conference championship. The working group proposal addresses those cocnerns very well while satisfies the SEC’s and ND’s desire of a bigger at large pool.

(06-10-2021 03:57 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  There is no reason for 6 at large teams. If you want a true championship there should be ALL conference champs and two at large

Top 4 byes

Next 4 host last 4
Last year would have looked like this

3 Clemson ACC
4 OSU B1G
10 Oklahoma Big 12
Ball State MAC
24 San Jose St MWC
25 Oregon PAC
1 Alabama SEC
12 Coastal Carolina Sunbelt
UAB CUSA
9 Cincinnati AAC

Based on the week 16 rankings
4 Notre Dame (BYE) and 5 Texas AM would be the two at large.
Byes
1 Alabama
2 Notre Dame AT LARGE
3 Clemson ACC
4 OSU B1G

5 Texas A&M host 54 Ball State
9 Cincinnati host 50 UAB
10 Oklahoma host 25 Oregon
12 Coastal Carolina host 24 San Jose St MWC

No, 6+6 is way better than 10+2

So: if the 4 byes go to conference champs only, the same conference cannot get two byes. Therefore, in a scenario such as 2017, where Georgia won the SEC championship and Alabama was an at-large CFP participant, Alabama would be the #5 seed instead of #4 as they were under the current setup. Bama would play an extra game, albeit at home.

In this 12 team playoff, the SEC will have 3, 4, or maybe 5 participants in most years.

If you're Oklahoma: do you move to the SEC, where you can have a good year (9-3, 10-2, etc.) and make the playoff as an at-large without winning the conference? Or, do you remain in the Big 12, where you can win the conference most years and have a good chance of getting one of the top 4 byes, but risk missing the playoff in a 9-3 or 10-2 year.

Edit: Upon looking at a bracket based on last year's CFP rankings, OU would have been a #4 seed, as Notre Dame and Texas A&M were not conference champions. OU would have been the fourth-ranked conference champion. That was not OU's best team, and it started slow but finished strong as players returned from suspension and young players gained experience. Last year was a freak year, but that's how it would have played out.

If you are Oklahoma you leverage your elite FB program to get the academic bump by joining the B1G and take Kansas.

B1G West is like playing in the old Big 8 conference.

(06-11-2021 06:30 AM)esayem Wrote:  

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

(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.

I could see that but I could also see the Sugar hosting a semi and the Peach hosting the SEC champ some years if the Sugar wants to host a semi.

I suppose it depends on what the bowls want.

Were the NY6 bowls on this committee, or will they be subject to decisions made without their input? I could see how the Rose Bowl might not be happy about all this. If there are going to be four quarterfinal games on New Years, they probably wouldn't agree to be in a rotation in which they have to move away from their traditional New Year's every third year. Likewise with the Sugar Bowl, and maybe the Orange Bowl as well.

Let's say that, to accommodate them, the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta are designated as permanent quarterfinal sites on New Year's, while the semis are always played at the Peach and Cotton Bowls. Then all six could potentially rotate as Finals hosts.

If both the B1G and PAC champs earn a bye, then they can't meet in the Rose Bowl. There could only be a B1G-PAC pairing if one of them gets a bye and the other wins a first round game. The same would be true for the SEC and Big 12 in the Sugar Bowl, except that tie-in is fairly recent, and doesn't carry the baggage of tradition.

If the Peach and Cotton Bowls are designated as semifinal hosts, would they be able to stage a late December bowl game as well? I'm sure they wouldn't be permitted to have a New Year's date in competition with the quarterfinal sites, but they could play as late as New Year's Eve.

Would the four quarterfinal bowls object to hosting what some might think is a less important game than a semifinal, thus reducing them somewhat in stature. Would their egos allow that?

In any case, the NY6 won't know what teams they are getting until a couple of weeks later than they do now. How will that impact travel plans for fans of the participants? Will it mean host sites will have to rely more heavily on ticket sales to locals (which will cut into the tourist dollars)?

At this stage of the decision process, we are left with more questions than answers.

(06-11-2021 06:52 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Easiest way would be the current NY6 rotate between quarterfinals and semifinals, each hosting the semifinals once every three years and the quarterfinals twice every three years.

The Rose Bowl won't like not having games on New Year's Day but it's not unprecedented. I was actually in Los Angeles and got to see the Rose Parade in 2002. The Rose Bowl wasn't played on New Year's Day that year, it was played January 3 when it was the national championship. That was during the first cycles of the BCS before the "double hosting model". The same thing happened in 2006 (the great Vince Young/Texas vs. USC Rose Bowl national championship game). They certainly could insist on always having the quarterfinals. In this format, semifinals would be bigger games but quarterfinals have better calendar dates and have better chance of attracting tourism. With the 17 game NFL season and expanded 14 team NFL playoffs, it's possible Saturday and Sunday will be blocked and the Playoff semifinals will be stuck on weeknights (Monday and Tuesday?) If the semifinals were on Saturday/Sunday, they'll definitely be more attractive. A semifinal on a Tuesday night? If the six NY6 bowls got together and the Rose said they always want to be a quarterfinal, will the other five bowls agree to it if it means they get "stuck" with semifinals more often?

You have to play the QFs and SFs week 17 and 18 of the NFL regular season. Weeknight games that end at 1am ET are a disaster. Nobody has time for that at the start of the New Year.

USFFan

Pleasantly surprised someone here (snoopy) agrees with my POV.

I think the Big 12’s divisionless, 1 vs 2 format actually hurts them in this playoff. It guarantees that the Big 12 runner up an additional loss while in other conferences your 2nd best team isn’t necessarily in the CCG and doesn’t pick up that extra loss (think of some of the deep divisions like the SEC West and Big Ten East).

That CCG loss could hurt them in the at-large selection process.

(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.