It's basically the same format but gaurentees all P5 conference Champs get auto bid. The previous format said the top 6 conference Champs got an auto bid. This new format is called 5+1. It will be the most likely to pass.

https://www.si.com/college/2021/11/11/co...t-proposed

thansk for the read - my head is spinning now

They should just say all conference champions (10) then top 6 not a conf champ. Seed according to their rankings. Done in 4 weeks and no one has a complaint.

The six highest ranked conference champions is the fairest criteria. Of course the P5 are against it.

(11-11-2021 02:42 PM)InjunJohn86 Wrote:  They should just say all conference champions (10) then top 6 not a conf champ. Seed according to their rankings. Done in 4 weeks and no one has a complaint.

Agreed. I guess you could argue that teams aren't likely to have to play four games if you assume that teams usually won't be good enough to make the championship if they aren't good enough to get the bye... But other than that, 16 teams with ten conference champs and six at-large just makes too much sense.

The "10+ whatever the P5 want" model is the only one that makes any sense. As long as there are undefeated teams who dont even have a chance to compete it will be a bogus championshp.

(11-11-2021 03:05 PM)monarx Wrote:  The "10+ whatever the P5 want" model is the only one that makes any sense. As long as there are undefeated teams who dont even have a chance to compete it will be a bogus championshp.

Guaranteeing a spot for all 10 conference champions would immediately and irrevocably raise the recruiting profile of all of the G5 and kill this consolidation of power we have seen at the top.

(11-11-2021 03:17 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(11-11-2021 03:05 PM)monarx Wrote:  The "10+ whatever the P5 want" model is the only one that makes any sense. As long as there are undefeated teams who dont even have a chance to compete it will be a bogus championshp.

Guaranteeing a spot for all 10 conference champions would immediately and irrevocably raise the recruiting profile of all of the G5 and kill this consolidation of power we have seen at the top.

It wouldnt kill it, theyd have a lot more money but it would hurt it, which is sadly why it will not happen.

The alliance conferences are scared they are being left behind themselves. If you’re. It going to include all conference champs, which I’m actually ok with that, needs to be top 6 conference champs get auto bid. If your conference champ isn’t a top 6 conference champ, and you don’t get an at large, good sign you might not deserve it.

I’m ready for the “P5” to get off their high horse and be inclusive of all FBS schools.

I'd be OK with the 5+1 (12 team) model if we could get rid of the Committee rankings and use the old BCS ranking system or at least diminish the not so subtle pandering to just a few teams the committee shows every season.

What I read said the highest ranked G5 champion gets a seat

(11-11-2021 04:02 PM)Purplehazed Wrote:  What I read said the highest ranked G5 champion gets a seat

Yes but in the original proposal it was possible for two or more G5 teams to get auto-bids.

(11-11-2021 03:17 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(11-11-2021 03:05 PM)monarx Wrote:  The "10+ whatever the P5 want" model is the only one that makes any sense. As long as there are undefeated teams who dont even have a chance to compete it will be a bogus championshp.

Guaranteeing a spot for all 10 conference champions would immediately and irrevocably raise the recruiting profile of all of the G5 and kill this consolidation of power we have seen at the top.

As much as I’d love for the Sun Belt to have an auto bid, it definitely wouldn’t make sense. I don’t know how you can say with a straight face that the SBC, C-USA, and MAC champions deserve a spot over a second or even third ranked team from the SEC or Big Ten.

(11-11-2021 04:02 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  I'd be OK with the 5+1 (12 team) model if we could get rid of the Committee rankings and use the old BCS ranking system or at least diminish the not so subtle pandering to just a few teams the committee shows every season.

Exactly! With the committee still deciding how to rank teams you are going to have human error and P6 Bias. It still would be possible to have an undefeated G5 not make it into the 5+1 model if they perceivably have played "no one" and are not the top G5 team.

The real issue is how are we going to determine which one of the G5 teams is actually the best ranked? Once Cincy, UCF, Houston, and BYU are out of the picture the door is wide open for plenty of other teams at that point.

The 10+X model is possible but probably way, way, down the line. A second N.I.T. type playoff with the other 4 G5 champs could then be fun.

1 bid to the dance is better than 0 for teams at our level though.

(11-11-2021 04:31 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  The real issue is how are we going to determine which one of the G5 teams is actually the best ranked? Once Cincy, UCF, Houston, and BYU are out of the picture the door is wide open for plenty of other teams at that point.

The 10+X model is possible but probably way, way, down the line. A second N.I.T. type playoff with the other 4 G5 champs could then be fun.

1 bid to the dance is better than 0 for teams at our level though.

I’d be ok with a second tournament, I’d rather our conference champ play of conference champs over a 2nd from another “G5” or a 6th seed from a “P5” league.

But what happens if the “G5” gets 2 in, how do you fill that hole, and what do we call the “Race to the top of all the Second Class Citizens” trophy???

The committee has to go.

(11-11-2021 04:10 PM)DeanoAPP Wrote:  

(11-11-2021 04:02 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  I'd be OK with the 5+1 (12 team) model if we could get rid of the Committee rankings and use the old BCS ranking system or at least diminish the not so subtle pandering to just a few teams the committee shows every season.

Exactly! With the committee still deciding how to rank teams you are going to have human error and P6 Bias. It still would be possible to have an undefeated G5 not make it into the 5+1 model if they perceivably have played "no one" and are not the top G5 team.

You guys are way more optimistic than I am that the BCS would give us a better shot. UTSA is undefeated and I’m not aware of any computer ranking that has them near the top 12.

Kinda my thinking. Everyone bitched about the BCS system because it weighted it to strength of schedule. But the committee has proven to be no better due to it being heavily weighted to P5 inclined members. Without equal representation (and that ain't never going to happen) the committee is just as biased as the computers.

10 conference champs + 6 at-large is the only way this playoff becomes legitimate. There's a reason why the NCAA logo isn't anywhere on the trophy...