jimrtex
All American
Posts: 2,516
Joined: Aug 2021
Reputation: 248
I Root For: Houston, Tulsa, Colorado
Location:
|
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.
|
|