Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Poll: Which playoff format do you predict for 2026-27 season? YOU MAY VOTE FOR MORE THAN ONE OPTION
4 teams (no change in playoff system)
6 or 8 team playoff (at-large teams)
8 team playoff (2 at-large teams)
10 or 12 team playoff (at-large teams)
10 team playoff (4 at-large teams)
12 team playoff (6 at-large teams)
14 or16 team playoff (at-large teams)
14 team playoff (6/7 at-large teams)
16 team playoff (8/9 at-large teams)
Other (something else, no playoff, no idea)
[Show Results]
 
Post Reply 
SI: "CFP expansion moves closer to 2026." Which playoff system do you predict?
Author Message
jimrtex Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,516
Joined: Aug 2021
Reputation: 248
I Root For: Houston, Tulsa, Colorado
Location:
Post: #41
RE: SI: "expansion’s earliest year moves closer to 2026". Predictions for 20...
(01-13-2022 11:24 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-13-2022 11:05 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  
(01-13-2022 03:41 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(01-12-2022 12:03 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  Let the four lowest ranked conferences play a two round tournament.

AAC/CUSA:

WKU @ Cincinnati
UTSA @ Houston

Sun Belt/MAC

Kent State @ Louiisiana
Northern Illinois @ Appalachian State


Lots of problems with this erstwhile suggestion:

a) It sounds a lot like Marie Antoinette's expression "Let them eat cake!"

b) Cincy and Houston are going to be in the Big 12 in 2 years.

c) No one would have to "let them" hold such a "playoff," since they don't need anyone's permission to do so.

d) Someone would probably have to hold a gun to their heads to make them accept the idea of holding "G5 playoffs."

.
You perhaps did not comprehend that this suggestion was in the context of an 8+8 vs. 10+6 proposal. Under 10+6 no one would have to determine who the 10 were, but it would reduce the number of wild cards.

Under 8+8 the number of wild cards would be increased, but someone would have to decide which eight would be included.

My alternative would let all 10 FBS conferences participate, while retaining eight wild cards. It would do so by having 4 of the FBS conferences to determine the 7th and 8th on the field.

a) "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" is likely falsely attributed to Queen Marie Antoinette. "cake" is a mistranslation of "brioche".

b) My example was based on the 2021 configurations and division champions. Feel free to project the 2023 division winners of the AAC, Sun Belt, CUSA, and MAC - or for that matter substitute the MW for one of those four conferences. The NCAA would need to be modified to permit this proposal to happen.

c) The CCG are an explicit exception to the limitation of 12 games. Bowl games, playoff games, and games with Hawai'i are also exceptions. There would have to an exception for such a play-in or the conferences in question would have to use their 11th and 12th games.

d) It is unclear who you are referring to in "their heads" and "make them accept".

1. You said have the bottom 4 conferences play a "two round tournament." That means semifinals and then the winners play each other in the final game. That doesn't seem to be what you meant, but it's what you originally said.

So a lot of the reaction was to the idea of separating off the G5 from the main playoff system into a separate G5 playoff system. That's called FCS, and there is very little interest in the G5 in doing that.

2. "but someone would have to decide which eight would be included."
In your 7 vs 10, 8 vs 9 champs play-in set up, someone (or some formula) has to decide which 6 get byes and which 4 get sent to the play-in games
Someone suggested 8+8. My counter-suggestion is (6+4/2) + 8, where the final 2 conference champions are actually decided on the field among the lowest four-ranked conferences. Rather than having the CCG followed by a playoff between the conference champions, the semifinals would be between division winners from the two conferences. This way the final could still be the equivalent of a CCG (e.g. in all probability it would still be Houston v. Cincinnati)

So we now have our 8 conference champions: Alabama, Cincinnati, Baylor, Louisiana, Michigan, Pitt, Utah, Utah State.

Our eight wild cards are Georgia, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Ole Miss, Oklahoma State, Michigan State, BYU, and Oregon.

Conference champions play at home, but schools are seeded, with bracket adjusted to avoid conference matchups as long as possible:

In Bracket Order:

(13) BYU @ (1) Alabama
(6) Ohio State @ (11) Utah

(5) Notre Dame @ (15) Louisiana
(9) Oklahoma State @ (4) Cincinnati

(3) Georgia @ (16) Utah State
(10) Michigan State @ (7) Baylor

(8) Ole Miss @ (10) Pitt
(14) Oregon @ (2) Michigan
01-14-2022 04:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoBuckeyes1047 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,189
Joined: Jan 2021
Reputation: 107
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #42
RE: SI: "expansion’s earliest year moves closer to 2026". Predictions for 20...
(01-14-2022 04:53 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  
(01-13-2022 11:24 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-13-2022 11:05 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  
(01-13-2022 03:41 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(01-12-2022 12:03 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  Let the four lowest ranked conferences play a two round tournament.

AAC/CUSA:

WKU @ Cincinnati
UTSA @ Houston

Sun Belt/MAC

Kent State @ Louiisiana
Northern Illinois @ Appalachian State


Lots of problems with this erstwhile suggestion:

a) It sounds a lot like Marie Antoinette's expression "Let them eat cake!"

b) Cincy and Houston are going to be in the Big 12 in 2 years.

c) No one would have to "let them" hold such a "playoff," since they don't need anyone's permission to do so.

d) Someone would probably have to hold a gun to their heads to make them accept the idea of holding "G5 playoffs."

.
You perhaps did not comprehend that this suggestion was in the context of an 8+8 vs. 10+6 proposal. Under 10+6 no one would have to determine who the 10 were, but it would reduce the number of wild cards.

Under 8+8 the number of wild cards would be increased, but someone would have to decide which eight would be included.

My alternative would let all 10 FBS conferences participate, while retaining eight wild cards. It would do so by having 4 of the FBS conferences to determine the 7th and 8th on the field.

a) "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" is likely falsely attributed to Queen Marie Antoinette. "cake" is a mistranslation of "brioche".

b) My example was based on the 2021 configurations and division champions. Feel free to project the 2023 division winners of the AAC, Sun Belt, CUSA, and MAC - or for that matter substitute the MW for one of those four conferences. The NCAA would need to be modified to permit this proposal to happen.

c) The CCG are an explicit exception to the limitation of 12 games. Bowl games, playoff games, and games with Hawai'i are also exceptions. There would have to an exception for such a play-in or the conferences in question would have to use their 11th and 12th games.

d) It is unclear who you are referring to in "their heads" and "make them accept".

1. You said have the bottom 4 conferences play a "two round tournament." That means semifinals and then the winners play each other in the final game. That doesn't seem to be what you meant, but it's what you originally said.

So a lot of the reaction was to the idea of separating off the G5 from the main playoff system into a separate G5 playoff system. That's called FCS, and there is very little interest in the G5 in doing that.

2. "but someone would have to decide which eight would be included."
In your 7 vs 10, 8 vs 9 champs play-in set up, someone (or some formula) has to decide which 6 get byes and which 4 get sent to the play-in games
Someone suggested 8+8. My counter-suggestion is (6+4/2) + 8, where the final 2 conference champions are actually decided on the field among the lowest four-ranked conferences. Rather than having the CCG followed by a playoff between the conference champions, the semifinals would be between division winners from the two conferences. This way the final could still be the equivalent of a CCG (e.g. in all probability it would still be Houston v. Cincinnati)

So we now have our 8 conference champions: Alabama, Cincinnati, Baylor, Louisiana, Michigan, Pitt, Utah, Utah State.

Our eight wild cards are Georgia, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Ole Miss, Oklahoma State, Michigan State, BYU, and Oregon.

Conference champions play at home, but schools are seeded, with bracket adjusted to avoid conference matchups as long as possible:

In Bracket Order:

(13) BYU @ (1) Alabama
(6) Ohio State @ (11) Utah

(5) Notre Dame @ (15) Louisiana
(9) Oklahoma State @ (4) Cincinnati

(3) Georgia @ (16) Utah State
(10) Michigan State @ (7) Baylor

(8) Ole Miss @ (10) Pitt
(14) Oregon @ (2) Michigan

So based on what I could tell, instead of their CCG, you would San Diego St. (would’ve won the MWC based on conference record) host the MAC Champ (3 way tie, all went 1-1 against each other) in 1 play-in game and Louisiana host UTSA in the other game.

A part of me would like to have the 7th-10th ranked at-large teams do the same thing where BYU would play Clemson and Oklahoma play NC State, but Utah upsetting Oregon (not really an upset) renders 1 game meaningless and had Houston beat Cincy as well, then both games would’ve had no meaning and I don’t know if you can delay the at-large play-in games a week playing on Army-Navy week assuming you want the quarterfinals around NYD, which would’ve resulted in Oklahoma-BYU and Iowa-Oregon.
01-14-2022 06:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jimrtex Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,516
Joined: Aug 2021
Reputation: 248
I Root For: Houston, Tulsa, Colorado
Location:
Post: #43
RE: SI: "expansion’s earliest year moves closer to 2026". Predictions for 20...
(01-14-2022 06:07 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  
(01-14-2022 04:53 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  
(01-13-2022 11:24 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-13-2022 11:05 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  
(01-13-2022 03:41 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  Lots of problems with this erstwhile suggestion:

a) It sounds a lot like Marie Antoinette's expression "Let them eat cake!"

b) Cincy and Houston are going to be in the Big 12 in 2 years.

c) No one would have to "let them" hold such a "playoff," since they don't need anyone's permission to do so.

d) Someone would probably have to hold a gun to their heads to make them accept the idea of holding "G5 playoffs."

.
You perhaps did not comprehend that this suggestion was in the context of an 8+8 vs. 10+6 proposal. Under 10+6 no one would have to determine who the 10 were, but it would reduce the number of wild cards.

Under 8+8 the number of wild cards would be increased, but someone would have to decide which eight would be included.

My alternative would let all 10 FBS conferences participate, while retaining eight wild cards. It would do so by having 4 of the FBS conferences to determine the 7th and 8th on the field.

a) "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" is likely falsely attributed to Queen Marie Antoinette. "cake" is a mistranslation of "brioche".

b) My example was based on the 2021 configurations and division champions. Feel free to project the 2023 division winners of the AAC, Sun Belt, CUSA, and MAC - or for that matter substitute the MW for one of those four conferences. The NCAA would need to be modified to permit this proposal to happen.

c) The CCG are an explicit exception to the limitation of 12 games. Bowl games, playoff games, and games with Hawai'i are also exceptions. There would have to an exception for such a play-in or the conferences in question would have to use their 11th and 12th games.

d) It is unclear who you are referring to in "their heads" and "make them accept".

1. You said have the bottom 4 conferences play a "two round tournament." That means semifinals and then the winners play each other in the final game. That doesn't seem to be what you meant, but it's what you originally said.

So a lot of the reaction was to the idea of separating off the G5 from the main playoff system into a separate G5 playoff system. That's called FCS, and there is very little interest in the G5 in doing that.

2. "but someone would have to decide which eight would be included."
In your 7 vs 10, 8 vs 9 champs play-in set up, someone (or some formula) has to decide which 6 get byes and which 4 get sent to the play-in games
Someone suggested 8+8. My counter-suggestion is (6+4/2) + 8, where the final 2 conference champions are actually decided on the field among the lowest four-ranked conferences. Rather than having the CCG followed by a playoff between the conference champions, the semifinals would be between division winners from the two conferences. This way the final could still be the equivalent of a CCG (e.g. in all probability it would still be Houston v. Cincinnati)

So we now have our 8 conference champions: Alabama, Cincinnati, Baylor, Louisiana, Michigan, Pitt, Utah, Utah State.

Our eight wild cards are Georgia, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Ole Miss, Oklahoma State, Michigan State, BYU, and Oregon.

Conference champions play at home, but schools are seeded, with bracket adjusted to avoid conference matchups as long as possible:

In Bracket Order:

(13) BYU @ (1) Alabama
(6) Ohio State @ (11) Utah

(5) Notre Dame @ (15) Louisiana
(9) Oklahoma State @ (4) Cincinnati

(3) Georgia @ (16) Utah State
(10) Michigan State @ (7) Baylor

(8) Ole Miss @ (10) Pitt
(14) Oregon @ (2) Michigan

So based on what I could tell, instead of their CCG, you would San Diego St. (would’ve won the MWC based on conference record) host the MAC Champ (3 way tie, all went 1-1 against each other) in 1 play-in game and Louisiana host UTSA in the other game.

A part of me would like to have the 7th-10th ranked at-large teams do the same thing where BYU would play Clemson and Oklahoma play NC State, but Utah upsetting Oregon (not really an upset) renders 1 game meaningless and had Houston beat Cincy as well, then both games would’ve had no meaning and I don’t know if you can delay the at-large play-in games a week playing on Army-Navy week assuming you want the quarterfinals around NYD, which would’ve resulted in Oklahoma-BYU and Iowa-Oregon.
Not quite. The division winners would cross-over in the semifinals of these mini-tournaments. Think of the (Sun Belt/MAC) as a single conference with four divisions, and since it is so large, there are no regular season games between all divisions). I did seed these games, so that for example Cincinnati would have the higher seed and face WKU the lower seed, while Houston would host UTSA.

These semi-finals might be played as a regular season 12th game. Other teams in those conferences might be matched up for their 12th game.

The 13th game would not be a pure CCG since it would be possible that the two teams were from different conferences.

In a 16-game field, the first round would be played Army/Navy week, with perhaps the quarterfinals a week later.
01-14-2022 07:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Milwaukee Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,787
Joined: Jun 2021
Reputation: 212
I Root For: many teams
Location:
Post: #44
RE: SI: CFP expansion moves closer to 2026. Your predictions for the 2026-27 CFP.
.

Thus far, a slight majority (51%) of the votes cast have predicted a 12, 14, or 16-team playoff system with 6-9 at-large teams.

25.5% predict a 6, 8, or 10-team playoff system (or a 10-12 team playoff with all at-large teams), 11.8% predict that the current 4-team playoff will be maintained, and 11.8% did not offer a prediction.


.
(This post was last modified: 01-15-2022 03:12 AM by Milwaukee.)
01-15-2022 02:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sactowndog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,100
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 114
I Root For: Fresno State Texas A&M
Location:
Post: #45
RE: SI: "CFP expansion moves closer to 2026." Which playoff system do you p...
(01-11-2022 08:46 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think we’ll still end up with some form of the 12-team playoff (5+1+6 or 6+6), which makes it asinine that the powers that be can’t get their crap together and pass it prior to 2026.

As for a 16-team playoff, I strongly believe that the P5 don’t want anything to do with that system. Remember that the P5 have extremely valuable CCGs to protect. In the cases of the SEC and Big Ten, those CCGs are worth as much or more than their Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl tie-ins… and that’s money that they don’t have to share with anyone else.

A top 4 bye in a 12-team playoff preserves and probably enhance the value of this CCGs. An 8-team playoff is also small enough where no CCG loser can count on an at-large bid any more than today’s system. In contrast, providing absolutely no incentive to a CCG winner compared to an at-large bid beyond seeding in a 16-team playoff would turn them into the football equivalents of P5 basketball conference tournament championships (fun but very watered down in value).

Everyone needs to remember that the P5 still make a whole lot more money off of their regular season and CCG contracts than they do from the postseason. Anything that takes a single dime away from those contracts won’t get passed.

I’m not even sure the G5’s want that model as they would always get seeded against Alabama. One advantage of 6 + 6 is the G5’s get to compete against teams ranked 4-12 where they have always done well. If they get seeded against Alabama and get blown out the skeptics will just point to it as an excuse to exclude them even though most of the P5 would also be blown out.
01-15-2022 12:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crayton Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,328
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 186
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #46
RE: SI: "CFP expansion moves closer to 2026." Which playoff system do you predict?
Predict? It'll be formed ad hoc as the last one was.

P5 (P4?) conferences will secure bowl ties to the major NYD bowls. Then, those parties will agree to one/both of (1) utilizing 4 Bowls as quarterfinals, and/or (2) staging campus play-ins the 3rd Saturday of December. They'll then add access bowls as they see fit.

I don't see them allowing their Champs to be demoted to the play-in round, regardless of if that is "fair." I also am not convinced the G5 will get an automatic spot, maybe only if ranked in the Top 16.

The P5 doesn't need the G5 to sign off on expansion.
(This post was last modified: 01-15-2022 03:15 PM by Crayton.)
01-15-2022 03:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 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, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.