Updated 8-team playoff idea, basically a 4-2-2

So, this idea will be out of date within the week, but just wanted to post a modified version of the 5-1-2 now that Texas and Oklahoma have moved to the SEC and deflated the Big 12. 8 teams is still easier than 12, logistically, and simplicity may be necessary if issues regarding NIL and the NCAA are still in flux when the next contracts are signed. Not saying 8 > 12, only that 8 may be neccessary for the next contract.

4 spots to 4 Power Conference Champs. Sorry, Big 12, you no longer have the critical mass or blue blood to warrant an auto-bid. The SEC and the new "Alliance" each get their champions in so that the media values of their CCGs stay high. I anticpate CCG deregulation, but don't think all (particularly the SEC) will go divisionless, for competitive reasons.

2 spots to non-AQ Champs. Here the Big 12 and AAC could both get in; the Sun Belt and MW also have access through these two spots and the G5 generally keeps the same/better access compared to the 6+6.

2 at large spots. Here the expanded SEC could capitalize on their size and power. I am still a fan of allocating 1 spot to a WCG between the top two non-champs so that a 3rd at large team (Notre Dame or maybe yet another SEC team) has playoff access. The final spot would still be a true “at large” to allow a high-ranking team to sneak back in if they are upset in their CCG or the WCG.

If they go to 8 at this point, how should it be structured?

I wonder if a 10 team model could work.

- Teams 1-6 AQ for QF.
- 7 vs 10 and 8 vs 9 play for the final 2 spots in the QF. 7 hosts 10 and 8 hosts 9 a week or 2 after the conference championship games.

You could even pool your teams then rank them. Top 6 conference champs + 4 wildcards.

(08-22-2021 08:37 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Updated 8-team playoff idea

So, this idea will be out of date within the week, but just wanted to post a modified version of the 5-1-2 now that Texas and Oklahoma have moved to the SEC and deflated the Big 12. 8 teams is still easier than 12, logistically, and simplicity may be necessary if issues regarding NIL and the NCAA are still in flux when the next contracts are signed. Not saying 8 > 12, only that 8 may be neccessary for the next contract.

4 spots to 4 Power Conference Champs. Sorry, Big 12, you no longer have the critical mass or blue blood to warrant an auto-bid. The SEC and the new "Alliance" each get their champions in so that the media values of their CCGs stay high. I anticpate CCG deregulation, but don't think all (particularly the SEC) will go divisionless, for competitive reasons.

2 spots to non-AQ Champs. Here the Big 12 and AAC could both get in; the Sun Belt and MW also have access through these two spots and the G5 generally keeps the same/better access compared to the 6+6. BUT, there is a caveat that the highest ranked Independent is considered a "Champ". This is not an auto-bid for Notre Dame, but it does allow them (and BYU and Liberty and...) flexibility to make the playoff if they are outside the Top 6 (analysis shows at larges ranked below the Top 6 <50% chance of making the playoff).

2 at large spots. Here the expanded SEC could capitalize on their size and power. I am still a fan of allocating 1 spot to a WCG between the top two non-champs so that 1 more at large team (heck, maybe yet another SEC team) has playoff access. The final at large spot would still be reserved to allow a high-ranking team to sneak back in if they are upset in their CCG or the WCG.

If they go to 8 at this point, how should it be structured?

4-2-2 seems fine, but absolutely no special provisions for independents -- especially not for voluntarily independent schools. ND, BYU, etc. would have to make one of the two at-large spots.

(08-22-2021 08:37 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Updated 8-team playoff idea

So, this idea will be out of date within the week, but just wanted to post a modified version of the 5-1-2 now that Texas and Oklahoma have moved to the SEC and deflated the Big 12. 8 teams is still easier than 12, logistically, and simplicity may be necessary if issues regarding NIL and the NCAA are still in flux when the next contracts are signed. Not saying 8 > 12, only that 8 may be necessary for the next contract.

My answer is OT because I realize the premise is "if" we go to an 8-team playoff, but ....

I don't see any way 8 teams is chosen over 12 teams. The B1G, despite the Alliance, still has no interest in getting in essentially the same number of playoff teams as the ACC and PAC - much less a now rump L8 and AAC. And of course the SEC has no interest in this either. This would IMO have the effect of greatly leveling-out the power differences among the P-conferences, help rescue the L8 and even elevate the AAC to near-P6 status. The B1G and SEC do not want that, IMO.

But sticking with your premise, the only way I see the SEC even considering signing on to an 8-team model would be either a straight-8 format, or possibly under a 4-4 regime, with four spots reserved for the top 4 conference champs, and 4 at large bids.

(08-22-2021 10:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 08:37 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Updated 8-team playoff idea

So, this idea will be out of date within the week, but just wanted to post a modified version of the 5-1-2 now that Texas and Oklahoma have moved to the SEC and deflated the Big 12. 8 teams is still easier than 12, logistically, and simplicity may be necessary if issues regarding NIL and the NCAA are still in flux when the next contracts are signed. Not saying 8 > 12, only that 8 may be necessary for the next contract.

My answer is OT because I realize the premise is "if" we go to an 8-team playoff, but ....

I don't see any way 8 teams is chosen over 12 teams. The B1G, despite the Alliance, still has no interest in getting in essentially the same number of playoff teams as the ACC and PAC - much less a now rump L8 and AAC. And of course the SEC has no interest in this either. This would IMO have the effect of greatly leveling-out the power differences among the P-conferences, help rescue the L8 and even elevate the AAC to near-P6 status. The B1G and SEC do not want that, IMO.

But sticking with your premise, the only way I see the SEC even considering signing on to an 8-team model would be either a straight-8 format, or possibly under a 4-4 regime, with four spots reserved for the top 4 conference champs, and 4 at large bids.

Actually—an 8 team playoff proposal is EXACTLY the kind of thing you might see from the Big10 and it’s Alliance membership. The Alliance believes strongly in the current academics based student athlete collegiate model and are against moves toward professionalism in college sports. The 17 game season teams participating in the national championship game (assuming the current 12 team proposal is up for a vote) is a real concern for those Alliance members. I could see them pushing for a simpler 8 team model that carves a game off that 17 game NCG participant total.

8 P4

(08-22-2021 11:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 10:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 08:37 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Updated 8-team playoff idea

So, this idea will be out of date within the week, but just wanted to post a modified version of the 5-1-2 now that Texas and Oklahoma have moved to the SEC and deflated the Big 12. 8 teams is still easier than 12, logistically, and simplicity may be necessary if issues regarding NIL and the NCAA are still in flux when the next contracts are signed. Not saying 8 > 12, only that 8 may be necessary for the next contract.

My answer is OT because I realize the premise is "if" we go to an 8-team playoff, but ....

I don't see any way 8 teams is chosen over 12 teams. The B1G, despite the Alliance, still has no interest in getting in essentially the same number of playoff teams as the ACC and PAC - much less a now rump L8 and AAC. And of course the SEC has no interest in this either. This would IMO have the effect of greatly leveling-out the power differences among the P-conferences, help rescue the L8 and even elevate the AAC to near-P6 status. The B1G and SEC do not want that, IMO.

But sticking with your premise, the only way I see the SEC even considering signing on to an 8-team model would be either a straight-8 format, or possibly under a 4-4 regime, with four spots reserved for the top 4 conference champs, and 4 at large bids.

Actually—an 8 team playoff proposal is EXACTLY the kind of thing you might see from the Big10 and it’s Alliance membership. The Alliance believes strongly in the current academics based student athlete collegiate model and are against moves toward professionalism in college sports. The 17 game season teams participating in the national championship game (assuming the current 12 team proposal is up for a vote) is a real concern for those Alliance members. I could see them pushing for a simpler 8 team model that carves a game off that 17 game NCG participant total.

Agree. IMO, the UT/OU expansion was such a game-changing move that the 12 team CFP proposal will be re-thought by the Alliance. Playing 17 games will be portrayed as a hypocritical money grab that is not in the best interests of student-athletes. The SEC champ, Ohio State, Clemson and Oklahoma will all be happy allowing the current format to continue. The major fights will be on NIL, NCAA governance and helping student-athletes.

Eventually, the CFP will expand to 8 teams. The expansion will have 6 conference champs (including autobids for the top 4 conferences) + 2 at large selections. The SEC will then be pissed, but the Alliance will try to make college-athletics more about student-athletes.

(08-22-2021 12:07 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 11:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 10:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 08:37 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Updated 8-team playoff idea

So, this idea will be out of date within the week, but just wanted to post a modified version of the 5-1-2 now that Texas and Oklahoma have moved to the SEC and deflated the Big 12. 8 teams is still easier than 12, logistically, and simplicity may be necessary if issues regarding NIL and the NCAA are still in flux when the next contracts are signed. Not saying 8 > 12, only that 8 may be necessary for the next contract.

My answer is OT because I realize the premise is "if" we go to an 8-team playoff, but ....

I don't see any way 8 teams is chosen over 12 teams. The B1G, despite the Alliance, still has no interest in getting in essentially the same number of playoff teams as the ACC and PAC - much less a now rump L8 and AAC. And of course the SEC has no interest in this either. This would IMO have the effect of greatly leveling-out the power differences among the P-conferences, help rescue the L8 and even elevate the AAC to near-P6 status. The B1G and SEC do not want that, IMO.

But sticking with your premise, the only way I see the SEC even considering signing on to an 8-team model would be either a straight-8 format, or possibly under a 4-4 regime, with four spots reserved for the top 4 conference champs, and 4 at large bids.

Actually—an 8 team playoff proposal is EXACTLY the kind of thing you might see from the Big10 and it’s Alliance membership. The Alliance believes strongly in the current academics based student athlete collegiate model and are against moves toward professionalism in college sports. The 17 game season teams participating in the national championship game (assuming the current 12 team proposal is up for a vote) is a real concern for those Alliance members. I could see them pushing for a simpler 8 team model that carves a game off that 17 game NCG participant total.

Agree. IMO, the UT/OU expansion was such a game-changing move that the 12 team CFP proposal will be re-thought by the Alliance. Playing 17 games will be portrayed as a hypocritical money grab that is not in the best interests of student-athletes. The SEC champ, Ohio State, Clemson and Oklahoma will all be happy allowing the current format to continue. The major fights will be on NIL, NCAA governance and helping student-athletes.

Eventually, the CFP will expand to 8 teams. The expansion will have 6 conference champs (including autobids for the top 4 conferences) + 2 at large selections. The SEC will then be pissed, but the Alliance will try to make college-athletics more about student-athletes.

I agree that if the Alliance comes out against 12 teams, then the current CFP will continue.

I do not ever see a time when we get an 8-team playoff with just two at-large spots. The SEC and B1G will not go along with it, Notre Dame will not either, IMO.

(08-22-2021 11:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 10:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 08:37 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Updated 8-team playoff idea

So, this idea will be out of date within the week, but just wanted to post a modified version of the 5-1-2 now that Texas and Oklahoma have moved to the SEC and deflated the Big 12. 8 teams is still easier than 12, logistically, and simplicity may be necessary if issues regarding NIL and the NCAA are still in flux when the next contracts are signed. Not saying 8 > 12, only that 8 may be necessary for the next contract.

My answer is OT because I realize the premise is "if" we go to an 8-team playoff, but ....

I don't see any way 8 teams is chosen over 12 teams. The B1G, despite the Alliance, still has no interest in getting in essentially the same number of playoff teams as the ACC and PAC - much less a now rump L8 and AAC. And of course the SEC has no interest in this either. This would IMO have the effect of greatly leveling-out the power differences among the P-conferences, help rescue the L8 and even elevate the AAC to near-P6 status. The B1G and SEC do not want that, IMO.

But sticking with your premise, the only way I see the SEC even considering signing on to an 8-team model would be either a straight-8 format, or possibly under a 4-4 regime, with four spots reserved for the top 4 conference champs, and 4 at large bids.

Actually—an 8 team playoff proposal is EXACTLY the kind of thing you might see from the Big10 and it’s Alliance membership. The Alliance believes strongly in the current academics based student athlete collegiate model and are against moves toward professionalism in college sports. The 17 game season teams participating in the national championship game (assuming the current 12 team proposal is up for a vote) is a real concern for those Alliance members. I could see them pushing for a simpler 8 team model that carves a game off that 17 game NCG participant total.

That was some of my thought for this thread. An 8-team format (with AQ) would be the preferred format for the Alliance (unless they resurrect Delaney's "Champions Only" 4-team model). A Big Ten team may miss out with 4 fewer at-large spots, and the overall money may/will be less, but the "Alliance" seems to be in damage-control mode, so they'll opt for the more conservative of the options... which, again, MAY mean keeping the Straight Four. The SEC/B1G won't "lose" money, they'll just increase it by a smaller amount.

(08-22-2021 10:38 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  4-2-2 seems fine, but absolutely no special provisions for independents -- especially not for voluntarily independent schools. ND, BYU, etc. would have to make one of the two at-large spots.

I'm fine with that. But, Notre Dame still seems to be able to put itself in positions of power, so I expect some sort of provision for them. It may simply be a "Top 8" provision, and I agree that'd be better than a rule that allows, say, a #13 BYU to jump a #7 Florida. :)

(08-22-2021 01:55 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 11:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 10:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 08:37 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Updated 8-team playoff idea

So, this idea will be out of date within the week, but just wanted to post a modified version of the 5-1-2 now that Texas and Oklahoma have moved to the SEC and deflated the Big 12. 8 teams is still easier than 12, logistically, and simplicity may be necessary if issues regarding NIL and the NCAA are still in flux when the next contracts are signed. Not saying 8 > 12, only that 8 may be necessary for the next contract.

My answer is OT because I realize the premise is "if" we go to an 8-team playoff, but ....

I don't see any way 8 teams is chosen over 12 teams. The B1G, despite the Alliance, still has no interest in getting in essentially the same number of playoff teams as the ACC and PAC - much less a now rump L8 and AAC. And of course the SEC has no interest in this either. This would IMO have the effect of greatly leveling-out the power differences among the P-conferences, help rescue the L8 and even elevate the AAC to near-P6 status. The B1G and SEC do not want that, IMO.

But sticking with your premise, the only way I see the SEC even considering signing on to an 8-team model would be either a straight-8 format, or possibly under a 4-4 regime, with four spots reserved for the top 4 conference champs, and 4 at large bids.

Actually—an 8 team playoff proposal is EXACTLY the kind of thing you might see from the Big10 and it’s Alliance membership. The Alliance believes strongly in the current academics based student athlete collegiate model and are against moves toward professionalism in college sports. The 17 game season teams participating in the national championship game (assuming the current 12 team proposal is up for a vote) is a real concern for those Alliance members. I could see them pushing for a simpler 8 team model that carves a game off that 17 game NCG participant total.

That was some of my thought for this thread. An 8-team format (with AQ) would be the preferred format for the Alliance (unless they resurrect Delaney's "Champions Only" 4-team model). A Big Ten team may miss out with 4 fewer at-large spots, and the overall money may/will be less, but the "Alliance" seems to be in damage-control mode, so they'll opt for the more conservative of the options... which, again, MAY mean keeping the Straight Four. The SEC/B1G won't "lose" money, they'll just increase it by a smaller amount.

(08-22-2021 10:38 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  4-2-2 seems fine, but absolutely no special provisions for independents -- especially not for voluntarily independent schools. ND, BYU, etc. would have to make one of the two at-large spots.

I'm fine with that. But, Notre Dame still seems to be able to put itself in positions of power, so I expect some sort of provision for them. It may simply be a "Top 8" provision, and I agree that'd be better than a rule that allows, say, a #13 BYU to jump a #7 Florida. :)

No, the Big Ten still wants more at large births so thats not what they want.

(08-22-2021 01:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 12:07 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 11:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 10:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 08:37 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Updated 8-team playoff idea

So, this idea will be out of date within the week, but just wanted to post a modified version of the 5-1-2 now that Texas and Oklahoma have moved to the SEC and deflated the Big 12. 8 teams is still easier than 12, logistically, and simplicity may be necessary if issues regarding NIL and the NCAA are still in flux when the next contracts are signed. Not saying 8 > 12, only that 8 may be necessary for the next contract.

My answer is OT because I realize the premise is "if" we go to an 8-team playoff, but ....

I don't see any way 8 teams is chosen over 12 teams. The B1G, despite the Alliance, still has no interest in getting in essentially the same number of playoff teams as the ACC and PAC - much less a now rump L8 and AAC. And of course the SEC has no interest in this either. This would IMO have the effect of greatly leveling-out the power differences among the P-conferences, help rescue the L8 and even elevate the AAC to near-P6 status. The B1G and SEC do not want that, IMO.

But sticking with your premise, the only way I see the SEC even considering signing on to an 8-team model would be either a straight-8 format, or possibly under a 4-4 regime, with four spots reserved for the top 4 conference champs, and 4 at large bids.

Actually—an 8 team playoff proposal is EXACTLY the kind of thing you might see from the Big10 and it’s Alliance membership. The Alliance believes strongly in the current academics based student athlete collegiate model and are against moves toward professionalism in college sports. The 17 game season teams participating in the national championship game (assuming the current 12 team proposal is up for a vote) is a real concern for those Alliance members. I could see them pushing for a simpler 8 team model that carves a game off that 17 game NCG participant total.

Agree. IMO, the UT/OU expansion was such a game-changing move that the 12 team CFP proposal will be re-thought by the Alliance. Playing 17 games will be portrayed as a hypocritical money grab that is not in the best interests of student-athletes. The SEC champ, Ohio State, Clemson and Oklahoma will all be happy allowing the current format to continue. The major fights will be on NIL, NCAA governance and helping student-athletes.

Eventually, the CFP will expand to 8 teams. The expansion will have 6 conference champs (including autobids for the top 4 conferences) + 2 at large selections. The SEC will then be pissed, but the Alliance will try to make college-athletics more about student-athletes.

I agree that if the Alliance comes out against 12 teams, then the current CFP will continue.

I do not ever see a time when we get an 8-team playoff with just two at-large spots. The SEC and B1G will not go along with it, Notre Dame will not either, IMO.

I agree with this. If an 8 team playoff is going to be viable to the SEC and the B1G, 4 conference champ's and 4 wild cards is the minimum they would agree to.

(08-22-2021 01:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 12:07 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 11:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 10:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 08:37 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Updated 8-team playoff idea

So, this idea will be out of date within the week, but just wanted to post a modified version of the 5-1-2 now that Texas and Oklahoma have moved to the SEC and deflated the Big 12. 8 teams is still easier than 12, logistically, and simplicity may be necessary if issues regarding NIL and the NCAA are still in flux when the next contracts are signed. Not saying 8 > 12, only that 8 may be necessary for the next contract.

My answer is OT because I realize the premise is "if" we go to an 8-team playoff, but ....

I don't see any way 8 teams is chosen over 12 teams. The B1G, despite the Alliance, still has no interest in getting in essentially the same number of playoff teams as the ACC and PAC - much less a now rump L8 and AAC. And of course the SEC has no interest in this either. This would IMO have the effect of greatly leveling-out the power differences among the P-conferences, help rescue the L8 and even elevate the AAC to near-P6 status. The B1G and SEC do not want that, IMO.

But sticking with your premise, the only way I see the SEC even considering signing on to an 8-team model would be either a straight-8 format, or possibly under a 4-4 regime, with four spots reserved for the top 4 conference champs, and 4 at large bids.

Actually—an 8 team playoff proposal is EXACTLY the kind of thing you might see from the Big10 and it’s Alliance membership. The Alliance believes strongly in the current academics based student athlete collegiate model and are against moves toward professionalism in college sports. The 17 game season teams participating in the national championship game (assuming the current 12 team proposal is up for a vote) is a real concern for those Alliance members. I could see them pushing for a simpler 8 team model that carves a game off that 17 game NCG participant total.

Agree. IMO, the UT/OU expansion was such a game-changing move that the 12 team CFP proposal will be re-thought by the Alliance. Playing 17 games will be portrayed as a hypocritical money grab that is not in the best interests of student-athletes. The SEC champ, Ohio State, Clemson and Oklahoma will all be happy allowing the current format to continue. The major fights will be on NIL, NCAA governance and helping student-athletes.

Eventually, the CFP will expand to 8 teams. The expansion will have 6 conference champs (including autobids for the top 4 conferences) + 2 at large selections. The SEC will then be pissed, but the Alliance will try to make college-athletics more about student-athletes.

I agree that if the Alliance comes out against 12 teams, then the current CFP will continue.

I do not ever see a time when we get an 8-team playoff with just two at-large spots. The SEC and B1G will not go along with it, Notre Dame will not either, IMO.

A single conference can block right now because any change is a alteration of an existing contract and requires every party to agree. In a new contract, it will be more of a majority rules situation--so the SEC wont win every single battle over every single issue. That said---the SEC could hold out and I doubt any playoff can go forward without SEC participation---but then the Big10/Pac12/ACC could do the same on the SEC's 12 team proposal. So--in the end--there will have to be some give and take among all parties on the CFP issues of total playoff size and "at large" pool size.

(08-22-2021 10:38 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 08:37 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Updated 8-team playoff idea

So, this idea will be out of date within the week, but just wanted to post a modified version of the 5-1-2 now that Texas and Oklahoma have moved to the SEC and deflated the Big 12. 8 teams is still easier than 12, logistically, and simplicity may be necessary if issues regarding NIL and the NCAA are still in flux when the next contracts are signed. Not saying 8 > 12, only that 8 may be neccessary for the next contract.

4 spots to 4 Power Conference Champs. Sorry, Big 12, you no longer have the critical mass or blue blood to warrant an auto-bid. The SEC and the new "Alliance" each get their champions in so that the media values of their CCGs stay high. I anticpate CCG deregulation, but don't think all (particularly the SEC) will go divisionless, for competitive reasons.

2 spots to non-AQ Champs. Here the Big 12 and AAC could both get in; the Sun Belt and MW also have access through these two spots and the G5 generally keeps the same/better access compared to the 6+6. BUT, there is a caveat that the highest ranked Independent is considered a "Champ". This is not an auto-bid for Notre Dame, but it does allow them (and BYU and Liberty and...) flexibility to make the playoff if they are outside the Top 6 (analysis shows at larges ranked below the Top 6 <50% chance of making the playoff).

2 at large spots. Here the expanded SEC could capitalize on their size and power. I am still a fan of allocating 1 spot to a WCG between the top two non-champs so that 1 more at large team (heck, maybe yet another SEC team) has playoff access. The final at large spot would still be reserved to allow a high-ranking team to sneak back in if they are upset in their CCG or the WCG.

If they go to 8 at this point, how should it be structured?

4-2-2 seems fine, but absolutely no special provisions for independents -- especially not for voluntarily independent schools. ND, BYU, etc. would have to make one of the two at-large spots.

Amen to this. Is ND part of the alliance? I don’t think so.

(08-22-2021 04:25 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 01:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 12:07 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 11:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 10:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  My answer is OT because I realize the premise is "if" we go to an 8-team playoff, but ....

I don't see any way 8 teams is chosen over 12 teams. The B1G, despite the Alliance, still has no interest in getting in essentially the same number of playoff teams as the ACC and PAC - much less a now rump L8 and AAC. And of course the SEC has no interest in this either. This would IMO have the effect of greatly leveling-out the power differences among the P-conferences, help rescue the L8 and even elevate the AAC to near-P6 status. The B1G and SEC do not want that, IMO.

But sticking with your premise, the only way I see the SEC even considering signing on to an 8-team model would be either a straight-8 format, or possibly under a 4-4 regime, with four spots reserved for the top 4 conference champs, and 4 at large bids.

Actually—an 8 team playoff proposal is EXACTLY the kind of thing you might see from the Big10 and it’s Alliance membership. The Alliance believes strongly in the current academics based student athlete collegiate model and are against moves toward professionalism in college sports. The 17 game season teams participating in the national championship game (assuming the current 12 team proposal is up for a vote) is a real concern for those Alliance members. I could see them pushing for a simpler 8 team model that carves a game off that 17 game NCG participant total.

Agree. IMO, the UT/OU expansion was such a game-changing move that the 12 team CFP proposal will be re-thought by the Alliance. Playing 17 games will be portrayed as a hypocritical money grab that is not in the best interests of student-athletes. The SEC champ, Ohio State, Clemson and Oklahoma will all be happy allowing the current format to continue. The major fights will be on NIL, NCAA governance and helping student-athletes.

Eventually, the CFP will expand to 8 teams. The expansion will have 6 conference champs (including autobids for the top 4 conferences) + 2 at large selections. The SEC will then be pissed, but the Alliance will try to make college-athletics more about student-athletes.

I agree that if the Alliance comes out against 12 teams, then the current CFP will continue.

I do not ever see a time when we get an 8-team playoff with just two at-large spots. The SEC and B1G will not go along with it, Notre Dame will not either, IMO.

I agree with this. If an 8 team playoff is going to be viable to the SEC and the B1G, 4 conference champ's and 4 wild cards is the minimum they would agree to.

Then what about G6? They have zero voting power? Don’t forget the magic word: EQUITY.

(08-22-2021 12:07 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 11:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 10:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 08:37 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Updated 8-team playoff idea

So, this idea will be out of date within the week, but just wanted to post a modified version of the 5-1-2 now that Texas and Oklahoma have moved to the SEC and deflated the Big 12. 8 teams is still easier than 12, logistically, and simplicity may be necessary if issues regarding NIL and the NCAA are still in flux when the next contracts are signed. Not saying 8 > 12, only that 8 may be necessary for the next contract.

My answer is OT because I realize the premise is "if" we go to an 8-team playoff, but ....

I don't see any way 8 teams is chosen over 12 teams. The B1G, despite the Alliance, still has no interest in getting in essentially the same number of playoff teams as the ACC and PAC - much less a now rump L8 and AAC. And of course the SEC has no interest in this either. This would IMO have the effect of greatly leveling-out the power differences among the P-conferences, help rescue the L8 and even elevate the AAC to near-P6 status. The B1G and SEC do not want that, IMO.

But sticking with your premise, the only way I see the SEC even considering signing on to an 8-team model would be either a straight-8 format, or possibly under a 4-4 regime, with four spots reserved for the top 4 conference champs, and 4 at large bids.

Actually—an 8 team playoff proposal is EXACTLY the kind of thing you might see from the Big10 and it’s Alliance membership. The Alliance believes strongly in the current academics based student athlete collegiate model and are against moves toward professionalism in college sports. The 17 game season teams participating in the national championship game (assuming the current 12 team proposal is up for a vote) is a real concern for those Alliance members. I could see them pushing for a simpler 8 team model that carves a game off that 17 game NCG participant total.

Agree. IMO, the UT/OU expansion was such a game-changing move that the 12 team CFP proposal will be re-thought by the Alliance. Playing 17 games will be portrayed as a hypocritical money grab that is not in the best interests of student-athletes. The SEC champ, Ohio State, Clemson and Oklahoma will all be happy allowing the current format to continue. The major fights will be on NIL, NCAA governance and helping student-athletes.

Eventually, the CFP will expand to 8 teams. The expansion will have 6 conference champs (including autobids for the top 4 conferences) + 2 at large selections. The SEC will then be pissed, but the Alliance will try to make college-athletics more about student-athletes.

I agree with everything in this post. I could also see a tweek...It could play out as The expansion will have 5 conference champs (including autobids for the top 4 conferences and highest rated G5 team/conf champ) + 3 at large selections. {which is what Notre Dame/BYU or any independant team would want would want}

The 6 conference champs (including autobids for the top 4 conferences) + 2 at large selections just might force Notre Dame to join IMHO

P5+Indys+Rice

-this board, probably

(08-22-2021 12:07 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Agree. IMO, the UT/OU expansion was such a game-changing move that the 12 team CFP proposal will be re-thought by the Alliance. Playing 17 games will be portrayed as a hypocritical money grab that is not in the best interests of student-athletes. ...

I don't reckon they will.

I can see the Alliance electing to push the start of the CFP12 to 2026, so it can go to the market rather than be done as a contract extension for ESPN. And going to 2026 opens the door to a version that the Go5 would veto for a 2023 contract restructure. I could see them wanting the money sooner rather than later. So that might go either way.

But the ACC and PAC12 are not served by a straight eight or by a "four best conference champs + four at large" as well as they are by the 6+6, and trying to get away with P4 champs plus 4 at-large is the same restraint of trade issues as it always was, when it looks like there will be even more "Go5 Senators" than there are already, with Kansas and West Virginia looking set to join the club.

The Big Ten wouldn't be participating in the Alliance if it was not OK with the CFP12. They support the CFP12, which the PAC12 and ACC wants. The ACC supports a bowl affiliation and NYD date for the Rose Bowl, like the Big Ten and PAC12 want.

(I don't know what it is that the Big Ten and ACC wants that the PAC12 would be throwing its weight behind, maybe further CCG deregulation so that schedules playing the majority of the conference annually are enough for a best of two CCG.)

The portrayal as a hypocritical money grab is for things that two out of three of the Alliance members do not want ... it is NOT for things that two out of three of the Alliance members want.

Top 6 champions
2 at-large

Keeps incentive for multiple teams but also limits how much one league can crowd the field.

(08-22-2021 05:38 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 04:25 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 01:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 12:07 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-22-2021 11:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Actually—an 8 team playoff proposal is EXACTLY the kind of thing you might see from the Big10 and it’s Alliance membership. The Alliance believes strongly in the current academics based student athlete collegiate model and are against moves toward professionalism in college sports. The 17 game season teams participating in the national championship game (assuming the current 12 team proposal is up for a vote) is a real concern for those Alliance members. I could see them pushing for a simpler 8 team model that carves a game off that 17 game NCG participant total.

Agree. IMO, the UT/OU expansion was such a game-changing move that the 12 team CFP proposal will be re-thought by the Alliance. Playing 17 games will be portrayed as a hypocritical money grab that is not in the best interests of student-athletes. The SEC champ, Ohio State, Clemson and Oklahoma will all be happy allowing the current format to continue. The major fights will be on NIL, NCAA governance and helping student-athletes.

Eventually, the CFP will expand to 8 teams. The expansion will have 6 conference champs (including autobids for the top 4 conferences) + 2 at large selections. The SEC will then be pissed, but the Alliance will try to make college-athletics more about student-athletes.

I agree that if the Alliance comes out against 12 teams, then the current CFP will continue.

I do not ever see a time when we get an 8-team playoff with just two at-large spots. The SEC and B1G will not go along with it, Notre Dame will not either, IMO.

I agree with this. If an 8 team playoff is going to be viable to the SEC and the B1G, 4 conference champ's and 4 wild cards is the minimum they would agree to.

Then what about G6? They have zero voting power? Don’t forget the magic word: EQUITY.

In a new contract, as opposed to amending the current one, nobody has voting power. It's all a matter of what the power players are willing to concede to those with less power.

I could very easily see a CFP12 not having everybody on board, with CFP8 being a compromise. But the P4 will want to be guaranteed a spot. Perhaps four autobids, plus any conference champ or independent ranked in the Top Ten, and the remaining spots going to the highest ranked teams regardless of conference.

But with a CFP8, I could see the SEC insisting that 16 team conferences be allowed to have a four team Conference Championship Tournament for which they get to keep all the revenue to themselves.

I believe changes like these will be part of the negotiations at the upcoming NCAA Constitutional Convention, and I think that's what the Alliance is primarily focused on (as opposed to scheduling agreements).

They may push for six and let eight be the compromise. And build in AQ for at least top four conferences no matter what number. G5 still hosed, especially because this group of stuck-up’s didn’t get to put their stamp on things at the beginning.

I’m out at this point anyway until the G5 get a confirmed spot, though. The COVID year desperation did me in. The top of this structure are soulless and gutless. And I just want to tune some of these conferences out altogether because of their obnoxiousness. This alliance is just another step in their respective evolution. Can’t keep up or compete, or simply not have your voice heard and taken as authority…screw it up with self-serving politics instead. No more.