(02-26-2024 09:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 11:42 AM)Crayton Wrote:  The P2 are painting themselves into a corner trying to keep 2 byes without a play-in round. The only real way to add value from there is to add a play-in round and access Army-Navy weekend. You can do that without tossing that 3rd NYD bye into the wastebin.

I really don’t think at least the Big Ten wants to go to where only the top 2 champs get byes because there’s just too much risk in a given year of losing that spot to a hot Big 12 or ACC champ (regardless of how strong the Big Ten might be in a given season). That bye to the quarterfinal that is virtually guaranteed if it’s for the top 4 conference champs suddenly becomes at risk if it’s just for the top 2 conference champs (and I don’t think that anything the P2 are doing is about introducing more risk). That effectively guaranteed quarterfinal spot, e.g. ensuring that the Big Ten champ is playing in a quarterfinal Rose Bowl on NYD *every* year, not merely most years, is worth more than the chance at an extra at-large bid if they have to choose. The thing with the play-in round is that you *don’t* have to choose.

The mitigation of risk points to keeping all 4 byes, I suppose. Only 3 byes in the OP introduces a modicum of risk that either the SEC or B1G champion is behind both the ACC and XII champs.

Which then points to the 14-team structure you’ve mentioned. Two play-in games on Army-Navy weekend feeding into the current 12-team model.

I still think 3 byes and 3 play-ins (16 teams total) better fits the stratification of FBS strength (not to mention 2 more games to sell). The best Pac/XII teams are now consolidated into the SEC/B1G. We’ve probably gone around enough on so little information from Dodd and others. Perhaps time to wait for the next leak of info.

(02-28-2024 11:34 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(02-26-2024 09:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 11:42 AM)Crayton Wrote:  The P2 are painting themselves into a corner trying to keep 2 byes without a play-in round. The only real way to add value from there is to add a play-in round and access Army-Navy weekend. You can do that without tossing that 3rd NYD bye into the wastebin.

I really don’t think at least the Big Ten wants to go to where only the top 2 champs get byes because there’s just too much risk in a given year of losing that spot to a hot Big 12 or ACC champ (regardless of how strong the Big Ten might be in a given season). That bye to the quarterfinal that is virtually guaranteed if it’s for the top 4 conference champs suddenly becomes at risk if it’s just for the top 2 conference champs (and I don’t think that anything the P2 are doing is about introducing more risk). That effectively guaranteed quarterfinal spot, e.g. ensuring that the Big Ten champ is playing in a quarterfinal Rose Bowl on NYD *every* year, not merely most years, is worth more than the chance at an extra at-large bid if they have to choose. The thing with the play-in round is that you *don’t* have to choose.

The mitigation of risk points to keeping all 4 byes, I suppose. Only 3 byes in the OP introduces a modicum of risk that either the SEC or B1G champion is behind both the ACC and XII champs.

Which then points to the 14-team structure you’ve mentioned. Two play-in games on Army-Navy weekend feeding into the current 12-team model.

I still think 3 byes and 3 play-ins (16 teams total) better fits the stratification of FBS strength (not to mention 2 more games to sell). The best Pac/XII teams are now consolidated into the SEC/B1G. We’ve probably gone around enough on so little information from Dodd and others. Perhaps time to wait for the next leak of info.

You could add a 3rd play-in to Frank's structure for 15 teams ensuring the top 4 champs a double bye to New Years, but then you run the risk a highly ranked at-large being severely underseeded if you guarantee 2 ACC and B12 teams and the CCG losers a bye.

Latest from Dodd... multiple bids are coming.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...l-playoff/

Nothing on the future of CCGs but 14 with option of 16 with multiple AQs.

My two cents, if it's 14, it will be three AQs for the P2 (3/3/2/2/1) with CCGs. With 16, it will be 4/4/2/2/1 and I don't think the CCGs will be played. Not Dodd's take, but mine.

Dodd also mentions the NFL and the third Saturday conflict.

This is a weird idea that won't happen. The Dodd article mentioned the idea of expanding the CFP without gaining any money from the additional games so how about this if we don't expand to 14-16 teams. 12 team CFP with 3 B1G, 3 SEC, next 3 champs, next 3 at-large, top 4 champs earn bye.

Top 2 from the P4 play in a CCG. 3rd and 4th place teams from B1G and SEC play each other for 3rd guaranteed spot. Then you have the 4 13th game losers (2 B1G/SEC 3rd-4th game losers and 2 ACC/B12 CCG losers) and maybe ND or other at-larges fighting for 3 final at-large spots (maybe guaranteed a road game if 13th game loser), but no cap on number of teams per. conference

It makes perfect sense for the P2 to want 14.

CCG double header, but the M2 are still in the same predicament we've talked about.

However, the added advantage is that you could have a 3/4 P2 play-in game. But that still doesn't make sense because a P2 5 seed may also qualify as an At-Large.

You have to mix in those play-in games such that a CCG losers are virtually guaranteed a spot, whereas a play-in game that weekend or Army/Navy weekend is exactly what the name implies. This is where the Big 12/ACC runner-ups are at a disadvantage because it doesn't serve either participants interest to play a CCG if they already have a spot locked up.

Maybe 10-2 M2 versus P2 9-3, but it gets messy.

I'll be shocked if it's 16 though and they keep CCGs solely for seeding purposes.

I'm not being the most KISS with this format, but don't think it's overly complicated.

16 teams, top 4 champs are top 4 seeds. Top 2 champs earn a bye. Seeds 3-4 play the play-in winners of 13-16 (@ 4th) and 14-15 (@ 3rd) who are at-large teams (potentially non-CCG at-larges so maybe CCG losers in top 11-12 protected or maybe you fully guarantee CCG losers in a P4 format). Next 4 teams seeded 5-8 and host 9-12. The 5th best champ can't be lower than the 12th seed. Multiple bids could be used for future realignment (presumably 4-4-2-2-1 + 3 at-large).

2023 as an example (just gonna use 6 champs + 10 at-large)

1 Michigan (bye to quarterfinals)
9 Missouri @ 8 Oregon

16 Notre Dame-13 Oklahoma winner @ 4 Alabama
Note: Louisville would be last team in, but participated in CCG so I left them out for ND
12 Liberty @ 5 Florida St.

2 Washington (bye to quarterfinals)
10 Penn St. @ 7 Ohio St.

15 Arizona-14 LSU winner @ 3 Texas
11 Ole Miss @ 6 Georgia

Edit: the alternate could be Liberty playing Texas. Arizona-LSU winner playing Alabama, and ND-Oklahoma winner playing FSU

2022:
1 Georgia (bye to quarterfinals)
9 Kansas St. @ 8 Tennessee
Note: Tennessee in SEC CCG in divisionless format, could end up as road team

16 Oregon-13 Washington winner @ 4 Utah
12 Tulane @ 5 TCU

2 Michigan (bye to quarterfinals)
10 USC @ 7 Alabama

15 Oregon St.-14 Florida St. winner @ 3 Clemson
11 Penn St. @ 6 Ohio St.
Note: OSU would be in B1G CCG if divisionless, could drop.

Alternate: Tulane @ Clemson
Oregon St.-FSU winner @ Utah
Oregon-Washington winner @ TCU

2021:
1 Alabama (bye to quarterfinals)
9 Oklahoma St. @ 8 Ole Miss

16 NC State-13 BYU winner @ 4 Baylor
12 Pittsburgh @ 5 Georgia

2 Michigan (bye to quarterfinals)
10 Michigan St. @ 7 Ohio St.
(Assuming B1G Divisionless CCG, OSU could drop to 8th seed)

15 Iowa-14 Oklahoma winner @ 3 Cincinnati
Note: assuming B1G divisionless CCG thus OSU-UM
11 Utah @ 6 Notre Dame

No Alternate as all 6 champs finished top 12 overall.