If anyone thinks that any of the P5 Conference schools are worried about giving G5 schools access, they're out of touch with reality.

An 8 team playoff will empower more P5 teams and allow for a greater profit margin for the P5 as no G5 team will ever be allowed to sniff the Playoffs. That's the total point of the BS article written about giving P5 vs P5 victories 2 points and a P5 vs G5 victory 0.5 points. That way, no G5 school could ever amass enough points in their schedule to qualify for the playoffs even if they go undefeated.

Please people wake up! The smaller conferences killed any shot at equity when they helped ESPN kill off the Big East conference. Even though the Big East year in and year out performed better then the ACC in most sports, they were continually bashed by their own media partner (ESPN), whom was looking to minimize the number of mouths it had to feed.

So, Thanks MWC, MAC, CUSA, SC and SC. You cut your own throats. Your leadership failed to see the future and took the handful of money that ESPN offered while ESPN had the trucks laden with cash stashed in the warehouse around the corner.

(07-05-2018 11:51 AM)Mestophalies Wrote:  If anyone thinks that any of the P5 Conference schools are worried about giving G5 schools access, they're out of touch with reality.

An 8 team playoff will empower more P5 teams and allow for a greater profit margin for the P5 as no G5 team will ever be allowed to sniff the Playoffs. That's the total point of the BS article written about giving P5 vs P5 victories 2 points and a P5 vs G5 victory 0.5 points. That way, no G5 school could ever amass enough points in their schedule to qualify for the playoffs even if they go undefeated.

Please people wake up! The smaller conferences killed any shot at equity when they helped ESPN kill off the Big East conference. Even though the Big East year in and year out performed better then the ACC in most sports, they were continually bashed by their own media partner (ESPN), whom was looking to minimize the number of mouths it had to feed.

So, Thanks MWC, MAC, CUSA, SC and SC. You cut your own throats. Your leadership failed to see the future and took the handful of money that ESPN offered while ESPN had the trucks laden with cash stashed in the warehouse around the corner.

The Big East killed itself by not taking the $13 million/school offer ESPN gave them.
Also, the fact that the MW wasn't given an auto-bid to the BCS bowl despite meeting the requirements show that it the BCS system gave false hope of a conference getting an auto-bid.

Hey, if the playoffs do expand to 8 teams. The P5 conferences want to have an auto-bid to it. And in consideration for that, the best G5 champ also gets an auto-bid along with a lower percentage of the increased pot (P5 cut of 75% goes to 80%.)
The track record so far of the G5 Access Bowls had proven we are always underrated anyway.

(07-05-2018 11:44 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I would like to see an expansion to 8 for the simple reason that it means more college football. Anything that gives me more college football, I'm all for it.

As for how the teams are chosen, I would like to see every P5 conference get an auto-bid, along with the highest rated G5 team. They other two spots would be filled by the CFP committee.

Maybe I'm the only one but I couldn't help feeling like last season ended one game too soon. I would have loved to have seen UCF get a shot at Alabama.
CJ

UCF would have had to earn a shot at Alabama or whoever. Had there been an eight-team playoff along the lines you wanted, we'd have had something like:

(1) Clemson vs (8) UCF
(2) Oklahoma vs (7) Auburn
(3) Georgia vs (6) Wisconsin
(4) Alabama vs (5) Ohio State

(07-05-2018 12:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  [quote='CardinalJim' pid='15372023' dateline='1530809052']
I would like to see an expansion to 8 for the simple reason that it means more college football. Anything that gives me more college football, I'm all for it.

As for how the teams are chosen, I would like to see every P5 conference get an auto-bid, along with the highest rated G5 team. They other two spots would be filled by the CFP committee.

Maybe I'm the only one but I couldn't help feeling like last season ended one game too soon. I would have loved to have seen UCF get a shot at Alabama

UCF would have had to earn a shot at Alabama or whoever. Had there been an eight-team playoff along the lines you wanted, we'd have had something like:

(1) Clemson vs (8) UCF
(2) Oklahoma vs (7) Auburn
(3) Georgia vs (6) Wisconsin
(4) Alabama vs (5) Ohio State

I think you have it backwards, Alabama didn’t earn the right to play for any playoff spot, but UCF sure did

(07-04-2018 04:13 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  What people always miss is how much regular season value would be lost.

Tell that to UCF, who went 12-0 in the regular season and didn't make the "playoff".

(07-05-2018 01:05 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 12:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  [quote='CardinalJim' pid='15372023' dateline='1530809052']
I would like to see an expansion to 8 for the simple reason that it means more college football. Anything that gives me more college football, I'm all for it.

As for how the teams are chosen, I would like to see every P5 conference get an auto-bid, along with the highest rated G5 team. They other two spots would be filled by the CFP committee.

Maybe I'm the only one but I couldn't help feeling like last season ended one game too soon. I would have loved to have seen UCF get a shot at Alabama

UCF would have had to earn a shot at Alabama or whoever. Had there been an eight-team playoff along the lines you wanted, we'd have had something like:

(1) Clemson vs (8) UCF
(2) Oklahoma vs (7) Auburn
(3) Georgia vs (6) Wisconsin
(4) Alabama vs (5) Ohio State

I think you have it backwards, Alabama didn’t earn the right to play for any playoff spot, but UCF sure did

Disagree. There shoudn't be auto-bids for conference champs.

The big problem with 8 will always be the semi-finals. The first round would be Playoff Bowl games after Christmas which would get good attendance. The problem is those alumni are not as likely to travel for a 2nd game, and will not be of value to the Bowls, and attendance will suffer, loaded up with almost free local tickets like many of the crap Bowls.

The logical solution is to set four of the NY6 as Playoffs. Then move the games to be hosted by the highest seed, either on campus or at a nearby pro-stadium (Doomed if say a B1G school, such as Detroit, Indy, Minneapolis).

Finally the Championship would simply be pushed back a week. This game would sell out regardless.

As for selection, Every P5 Champion, plus 3 at-large which might include the highest ranked G5 school who wins the NY6 lottery. You have to have every P5 Champion, because without that you run the specter of potentially 4 SEC schools. But the committee has to have the right to reject a P5 champion (imagine one of the champions came from the weaker division, with say 4 losses), so technically yes, have the committee select all 8. They would still select 11 plus a G5 for NY6. Just that instead of 4 games being meaningless, just 2 would be.

This would have the least impact, as still 2 school go to the Championship game, and no Bowl games dropped. Also the vacation schedules are not altered. All we add are two on campus (or nearby pro-Stadium) semi-final games, which should have only minimal lost school time.

But solutions moving up the first round thereby diminishing the Orange, Rose, Cotton, Sugar, Fiesta Bowls are non-starters. The existing Bowls and their schedules must be adhered to.

16 teams. 10 Auto Bids, 8 At Large Bids. Anything else is just more of the same.

Otherwise enjoy 6 SEC teams, and 2 teams from either the B1G/ACC/Big12

(07-05-2018 01:11 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 04:13 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  What people always miss is how much regular season value would be lost.

Tell that to UCF, who went 12-0 in the regular season and didn't make the "playoff".

Not only didn't make the playoff, but tossed so far out of the rankings that they were never close to being a factor in it. That's the part that really sucks...not making the playoff was one thing...not even getting into the top 10 was the real insult.

Back in the BCS, it wasn't a big deal to have a non-major rank high in any poll. They just weren't going to sniff spots 1 and 2. And the arrangement could place multiple teams in the top 10-15...BCS only had to take one non-major. Now, under this new playoff and also-ran bowl arrangement, I'll be amazed if a non-major ever breaks the top 10.

The season's been debased ever since the BCS, which was a response to those anomalies like BYU or a then-non-major bowl (UMFL-PSU Fiesta Bowl) getting to determine the championship. Polls and rankings have been screwing over things for decades now. That won't stop probably ever now. Best thing a UCF can do is wait and hope a major conference wants them. We'll probably never see something like BYU's championship ever again.

(07-05-2018 01:47 PM)SENOREIDA Wrote:  16 teams. 10 Auto Bids, 8 At Large Bids. Anything else is just more of the same.

Otherwise enjoy 6 SEC teams, and 2 teams from either the B1G/ACC/Big12

So .... a 16 team playoff with 18 teams? I like it.


A 16 team playoff could handle auto bids, but I am against any auto bids, ever. Top 16 teams as chosen by the committee, get in. If you win your conference, and aren't in the Top 16, you don't deserve a spot in the playoff. Simple enough.

UCF gets in to the playoff last year without an auto bid in an 8 team playoff, never mind with 16. They're easily in then.

Just say no to auto bids.

(07-05-2018 01:47 PM)SENOREIDA Wrote:  16 teams. 10 Auto Bids, 8 At Large Bids. Anything else is just more of the same.

Otherwise enjoy 6 SEC teams, and 2 teams from either the B1G/ACC/Big12

This is a big exaggeration. E.g., looking at the years of the CFP, here is how many SEC teams would have made an 8-team playoff based on CFP rankings, with the next-most conference for that year in parentheses:

2017 ... 3 (B1G ... 2)
2016 ... 1 (B1G ... 3)
2015 ... 1 (B1G ... 3)
2014 ... 2 (B1G ... 2)

So we see that in fact, the SEC would have gotten a grand total of 7 teams in the playoffs, an average of 1.75 per year, but in two of the four years only 1 SEC team would have gotten in.

In contrast, the B1G would have put 10 teams in, and in every season would have had at least two teams in.

(07-05-2018 03:00 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 01:11 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 04:13 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  What people always miss is how much regular season value would be lost.

Tell that to UCF, who went 12-0 in the regular season and didn't make the "playoff".

Not only didn't make the playoff, but tossed so far out of the rankings that they were never close to being a factor in it. That's the part that really sucks...not making the playoff was one thing...not even getting into the top 10 was the real insult.

Remember, it wasn't just the CFP that had UCF outside the top 10. Basically everyone else did too. The Coaches and AP polls did, Sagarin did, the combined BCS computers did, the Massey Composite did.

There was basically unanimous agreement that UCF didn't belong in the top 10 until after the bowl games. And even after the bowl games, UCF wasn't in the top 4 of any of those I mentioned above either.

Even after the Epic Winner Over Mighty Auburn (never mind that Auburn was a 3-loss team going in to the Sugar Bowl), the overwhelming consensus was that UCF wouldn't have belonged in a 4-team *post* bowl playoff.

The top 6 highest rated conference champions plus 2 at-large teams.

This is an excellent idea.

(07-04-2018 04:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 03:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Once the committee started putting non-champs in the playoff, thus leaving at least two P5 champs out every year that they do that, it decreased the believability of the committee's "We'll give a lot of weight to conference titles" rhetoric, and increased the chances that autobids will be included in the next playoff expansion.

But, if the TV guys paying the money prefer that a committee select all 8 teams, then money will probably win out over FOMO.

I'm not sure the P5 care much about conference champs missing the playoffs. The B1G, for example, put up basically zero fuss about Ohio State missing out this past year.

Well, OSU had two losses. 5 major conferences, 4 spots.

Quote:The P5 like the CFP money situation and they know that college football, for 120 years, has never had a process that auto-included conference champs.

On the contrary. Before the rise of the Fiesta, all of the major bowls had automatic bids. Rose was Big 10 vs Pac-8-10, Sugar SEC, Cotton SWC, Orange Big 8.

The Bowl Coalition and then the Bowl Alliance kept that intact, before evolving into the BCS.

Quote:Not necessarily speaking about you, but seems that this forum has a lot of posters who are young, who basically have grown up watching college football in the BCS era, and don't know much about how things historically were. So to them, the lack of a big elaborate formal playoff system with conference champ slots seems outrageous, and it also makes them believe that its coming is inevitable.

Time marches on. The tradition that tied certain conferences to certain games has been erased, except for the Rose Bowl to a certain extent.
Going down the list:
SEC: Sugar Bowl. For most of the BCS and CFP eras, the SEC champion was in the national title game or the playoffs, so the Sugar Bowl was a often a consolation prize for the runner-up.
ACC: Orange Bowl Dates back "only" 20 years. Miami, FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech have history with the OB, everybody else not so much. (Jim Brown, yes, but nobody says that Syracuse has historic Cotton Bowl ties).
Big 8/SWC: Orange/Cotton/Fiesta Bowl. Yeah, whatever. NEXT.
Except for the Rose Bowl, is anybody that much better than the "Peach Bowl", which was the "Chik-Fil-A Bowl" a minute ago?

(07-04-2018 04:13 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  If you are on the east coast for instance it wont particurally matter is USC looses a game in October when ranked high as they will almost certainly still control their destiny and the PAC-12 is probably getting a spot regardless. Meanwhile, the teams from your conference are probably getting a spot or two in regardless too.

With only two "at large" spots, there's still not a lot of margin for error. Maybe one conference has one really good team and the rest are garbage, so Big Time U can lose a game and still cruise to the CCG. But you're still going to see 11-1 or 12-1 P5 teams with soft schedules on the outside looking in.

Quote:This sport is at its core a regional one that has become national in the regular season laregly because of the setup. Diminish that and you get a bigger version of basketball (local following of most teams in the regular season and only huge national folllowing for the post season).

We said this about 4 teams too, though. Ten years ago, Ohio State loses to Virginia Tech in September and they're eliminated from the conversation. Now, a top-ten team loses in the nonconference, they're still in the picture because they can win their conference.

(07-04-2018 07:23 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  So ... an auto bid for a P5 conference champ, to make an 8 team playoff????

NO. No ... NO.

If you win your conference championship, in the P5, and you aren't automatically Top 8, you don't deserve an automatic bid to the playoff.

By winning that conference championship, you SHOULD already be IN the top 8 ... It's the top 8 for crying out loud. TOP 8. If you aren't (say, an upset in the conference championship game of a team that is 8-4 overall) already in the top 8, you DON'T deserve a spot in the playoff. And neither does that conference.

Deserves got nothing to do with it.

Nobody's going to raise hell to get rid of autobids, and the G5 and at least one major conference will raise hell if you try.

5 auto bids to the P5 conference champs, 1 auto bid to the top rated G5 team and 2 at large bids. This could alter future schedules where P5 schools are no longer afraid to schedule decent out of conference games since all they have to do is win their conference.

(07-05-2018 03:48 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 04:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 03:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Once the committee started putting non-champs in the playoff, thus leaving at least two P5 champs out every year that they do that, it decreased the believability of the committee's "We'll give a lot of weight to conference titles" rhetoric, and increased the chances that autobids will be included in the next playoff expansion.

But, if the TV guys paying the money prefer that a committee select all 8 teams, then money will probably win out over FOMO.

I'm not sure the P5 care much about conference champs missing the playoffs. The B1G, for example, put up basically zero fuss about Ohio State missing out this past year.

Well, OSU had two losses. 5 major conferences, 4 spots.

Quote:The P5 like the CFP money situation and they know that college football, for 120 years, has never had a process that auto-included conference champs.

On the contrary. Before the rise of the Fiesta, all of the major bowls had automatic bids. Rose was Big 10 vs Pac-8-10, Sugar SEC, Cotton SWC, Orange Big 8.

FWIW, i was referring to a process of picking the national champion.

(07-05-2018 11:14 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The reality is with this new committee system the Alabama's of the world, high resource schools already have complete control of everyone else.

The G5 hasn't been a threat to control since the bowl alliance which directed all recruiting to the BCS conferences.

Now the smaller P5 programs are no threat either with committee controlled playoff.

That is why I think an 8 team playoff would have P5 support as a way to give smaller programs a shot.

The local thing will probably play itself out that instead of the AAC getting the vote to join the club the reasonable solution is a second access bowl for the G5 to make feel more like a wild card bowl race.

I just don't think the PAC and B1G are going to be happy if the AAC is upgraded to P status when the G5 conferences in there backyard aren't getting a boost.

AAC is in the B1G's backyard. Cincinnati, UConn, Temple.

Pac has no interest in the schools in their backyard. The Cal St.'s, Boise St.'s are not their peers. Neither are Nevada, UNLV or Utah St. The only ones really close are Hawaii and Colorado St.

(07-05-2018 12:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 11:44 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I would like to see an expansion to 8 for the simple reason that it means more college football. Anything that gives me more college football, I'm all for it.

As for how the teams are chosen, I would like to see every P5 conference get an auto-bid, along with the highest rated G5 team. They other two spots would be filled by the CFP committee.

Maybe I'm the only one but I couldn't help feeling like last season ended one game too soon. I would have loved to have seen UCF get a shot at Alabama.
CJ

UCF would have had to earn a shot at Alabama or whoever. Had there been an eight-team playoff along the lines you wanted, we'd have had something like:

(1) Clemson vs (8) UCF
(2) Oklahoma vs (7) Auburn
(3) Georgia vs (6) Wisconsin
(4) Alabama vs (5) Ohio State

Did nobody else notice you failed to give the PAC their auto bid in your hypothetical line-up?Guessing you would have to substitute USC for Auburn. In which case, you could argue that Auburn is the one who gets screwed, not knowing at the time that Auburn would lose to UCF in reality.

What if they try a hybrid plan and go back to traditional bowl lineups on New Years and then seed the semifinals to be played 2 weeks after the New Years bowls. So in this senerio, the matchups on New Years would be:

Rose: BigTen #1 (OSU) vs PAC #1 (USC)

Sugar: SEC #1 (Georgia) vs at large (Wisconsin)

Orange: ACC #1 (Clemson) vs at large (UCF)

Cotton: Big 12 #1 (Oklahoma) vs at large (Bama)

Semifinals after New Years bowls

Clemson vs Bama
Georgia vs OSU