(07-05-2018 05:14 PM)goofus Wrote:  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.

The NFrickin'L is the reason TV won't go for that. Once they get too deep into NFL playoffs, CFB playoffs would be just an afterthought and the ratings would disappoint.

If CFP has 8 teams and 3 rounds, the New Year's bowl tradition will have to give way; the semifinals will have to be on or around Jan. 1 with first round games at least a week earlier. So the bowl cartel will fight like hell to keep the status quo and keep their grubby fingers digging into the money pie.

(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

The math is horrible, but this is the correct answer.

Just as in basketball sending the conference champion to the tournament means theoretically every team has a chance to win it all. Keep the championship games or do it by regular season standings, but every conference gets to send it's champ, any Independent who finishes ranked 15 or better is an auto bid. That's 37% of the bids would be at large and a spot for the second place of every A5 conference.

Home games for conference auto bids only.

Quarter/semi finals rotate between ny6 based on region. Fiesta/Rose/Cotton = West
Sugar/Peach/Orange = East

So using last year
16)Notre Dame @ 1)Clemson
9)Toledo @ 8)FAU
Winner to Orange

12)Wisconsin @ 5)USC
13)Auburn @ 4)Ohio St
Winner to Sugar

14)Penn St @ 3)Georgia
11)Alabama @ 6)UCF
Winner to Rose

10)Troy @ Boise
15)Miami @ 2) Oklahoma
Winner to Cotton

Semi-Finals:
Orange Winner vs Sugar Winner (Peach)
Rose Winner vs Cotton (Fiesta)

Those are great match ups

(07-05-2018 05:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 05:14 PM)goofus Wrote:  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.

The NFrickin'L is the reason TV won't go for that. Once they get too deep into NFL playoffs, CFB playoffs would be just an afterthought and the ratings would disappoint.

If CFP has 8 teams and 3 rounds, the New Year's bowl tradition will have to give way; the semifinals will have to be on or around Jan. 1 with first round games at least a week earlier. So the bowl cartel will fight like hell to keep the status quo and keep their grubby fingers digging into the money pie.

Open season on Zero week.
Conference Championship 1st Saturday of December.

Round of 16 double headers:
1 and 2 seed play host on the 14th of December
3 and 4 seed play host on the 15th of December
5 and 6 seed play host on the 16th of December
7 and 8 seed play host on the 17th of December

Quarter Finals
Top Seeds play on Christmas Eve
Lower Seeds Christmas Day

Semi-Finals
New Year's Day

Finals first Monday Night at least 7 days after. (This year January 14)

(07-05-2018 04:57 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(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.

Oops! Good point. USC would have replaced Auburn, as Auburn was the lowest-ranked non-champ in the CFP top 8.

So it would have been #2 Oklahoma vs #7 USC - on the assumption that the G5 champ would almost always be the #8 seed.

(07-05-2018 05:14 PM)goofus Wrote:  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

Worst of both worlds. It means meaningless exhibition games set in different settings become the overwhelming determinate of who gets in the playoff.

Seeding after the bowls is IMO one of the worst playoff ideas out there.

(07-05-2018 05:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 05:14 PM)goofus Wrote:  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.

The NFrickin'L is the reason TV won't go for that. Once they get too deep into NFL playoffs, CFB playoffs would be just an afterthought and the ratings would disappoint.

If CFP has 8 teams and 3 rounds, the New Year's bowl tradition will have to give way; the semifinals will have to be on or around Jan. 1 with first round games at least a week earlier. So the bowl cartel will fight like hell to keep the status quo and keep their grubby fingers digging into the money pie.

They could perhaps play semis on Mondays like they do the finals. Or maybe on Fridays. There are 3 time slots on Saturdays. Maybe a Friday and Saturday. The NFL makes it more difficult but not impossible.

Personally, I would love to see the playoffs divorced from NYD bowls and the grubby, greedy fingers of the bowl committees. I think playing without a month layoff would also produce better results. But I don't think they will do that. They will figure out a way to do it with the NYD bowls.

(07-05-2018 05:14 PM)goofus Wrote:  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

And why not quarterfinals:
Rose Ohio St. vs. USC
Sugar Oklahoma vs. Georgia
Orange Clemson vs. at large (UCF)
Cotton at large (Alabama) vs. at large (Wisconsin)

(07-05-2018 04:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(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.

AAC is on the competitive fringe of the B1G's backyard. When Cincinnati and Temple are good it impacts recruiting at Purdue and Rutgers.

Overall though the MAC is considered the backyard conference for the B1G will several shared agreements. For that reason I doubt the B1G would support elevating the AAC to P6 above the G4.

This is not about peers. This is about the future shape of college football.

(07-05-2018 03:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

Right, so a larger playoff would have added meaning to their regular season, not detracted from it.

(07-05-2018 07:40 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 05:14 PM)goofus Wrote:  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

And why not quarterfinals:
Rose Ohio St. vs. USC
Sugar Oklahoma vs. Georgia
Orange Clemson vs. at large (UCF)
Cotton at large (Alabama) vs. at large (Wisconsin)

Are coaches and ADs going to be ok with doing it that way instead of seeding teams 1-8?

What if Ohio St and USC are ranked 1-2, or OU and UGa are ranked 1-2? Could have a 1 vs. 2 and a 7 vs. 8 game in the first round.

Also, with the bowls clinging to Jan. 1, that leads to the later finish to the playoff that the TV networks will not prefer.

(07-05-2018 07:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 05:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 05:14 PM)goofus Wrote:  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.

The NFrickin'L is the reason TV won't go for that. Once they get too deep into NFL playoffs, CFB playoffs would be just an afterthought and the ratings would disappoint.

If CFP has 8 teams and 3 rounds, the New Year's bowl tradition will have to give way; the semifinals will have to be on or around Jan. 1 with first round games at least a week earlier. So the bowl cartel will fight like hell to keep the status quo and keep their grubby fingers digging into the money pie.

They could perhaps play semis on Mondays like they do the finals. Or maybe on Fridays. There are 3 time slots on Saturdays. Maybe a Friday and Saturday. The NFL makes it more difficult but not impossible.

Personally, I would love to see the playoffs divorced from NYD bowls and the grubby, greedy fingers of the bowl committees. I think playing without a month layoff would also produce better results. But I don't think they will do that. They will figure out a way to do it with the NYD bowls.

I don't see why they can't have the quarterfinals on new Years, semifinals 2 weeks later on Thursday and Friday. Then the NCG on Saturday 2 weeks after that.

(07-04-2018 09:46 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  As long as the G5 gets a guaranteed spot I would be all for it. Let the P5 conference champs get an auto bid and then let the committee choose the other 2 teams (would obviously be P5s.)

I would rather see 6 team playoff (top 2 teams get the bye) and exclude all G5 teams. Let G5 form their own division.

(07-05-2018 10:08 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 07:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 05:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 05:14 PM)goofus Wrote:  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.

The NFrickin'L is the reason TV won't go for that. Once they get too deep into NFL playoffs, CFB playoffs would be just an afterthought and the ratings would disappoint.

If CFP has 8 teams and 3 rounds, the New Year's bowl tradition will have to give way; the semifinals will have to be on or around Jan. 1 with first round games at least a week earlier. So the bowl cartel will fight like hell to keep the status quo and keep their grubby fingers digging into the money pie.

They could perhaps play semis on Mondays like they do the finals. Or maybe on Fridays. There are 3 time slots on Saturdays. Maybe a Friday and Saturday. The NFL makes it more difficult but not impossible.

Personally, I would love to see the playoffs divorced from NYD bowls and the grubby, greedy fingers of the bowl committees. I think playing without a month layoff would also produce better results. But I don't think they will do that. They will figure out a way to do it with the NYD bowls.

I don't see why they can't have the quarterfinals on new Years, semifinals 2 weeks later on Thursday and Friday. Then the NCG on Saturday 2 weeks after that.

I think that sounds reasonable.

As you move into January the value of the TV window increases.

The Christmas week window has limited viewership.

(07-05-2018 07:56 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 03:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

Right, so a larger playoff would have added meaning to their regular season, not detracted from it.

I think what the original poster who mentioned this meant was that an expanded playoff would reduce the 'value' of the regular season in a monetary sense. That while yes, the playoffs themselves would be worth more money, the payments conferences get for their regular season TV would decline, because on average each regular season game would be worth less money. That's because one reason people tune in for regular season games is they know just one loss can knock you out of the national title picture.

Not sure if that would be true or not, but that's a different kind of meaning from what you are talking about.

(07-05-2018 08:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 07:40 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 05:14 PM)goofus Wrote:  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

And why not quarterfinals:
Rose Ohio St. vs. USC
Sugar Oklahoma vs. Georgia
Orange Clemson vs. at large (UCF)
Cotton at large (Alabama) vs. at large (Wisconsin)

Are coaches and ADs going to be ok with doing it that way instead of seeding teams 1-8?

What if Ohio St and USC are ranked 1-2, or OU and UGa are ranked 1-2? Could have a 1 vs. 2 and a 7 vs. 8 game in the first round.

Also, with the bowls clinging to Jan. 1, that leads to the later finish to the playoff that the TV networks will not prefer.

Half pregnant. Either you keep the traditional ties or you should dump the bowls altogether.

5+1+2

Wedge, you are incorrect, the New Years Day traditions wont give way.

Those Bowl games deliver way too much money to be broken. They have been fully incorporated into the playoffs and that will remain. They are traditions that get alumni to travel during their Christmas/New Years break and spend a week in the tourist town. Way too much money and sponsorship you'd be throwing away. No alumni will know if their team is going to make it to one of those 4 New Years Bowls, so they wont vacation there, and many more of the tickets will be locals buying on the cheap. In effect you will throw away at least as much money ($that $39m figure) by playing a week earlier. So that WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

The most logical way to deal with it is push back the National Championship game another week into January. People will still attend this game no matter when it happens, January 15th or January 8th. The value added comes from making 4 of the NY6 playoffs instead of 2 (more interest) and in adding two first weekend of January (around the 7th) into two Playoff games.

The problem is where to hold those semi-final games. This is too short a turn around for alumni to book a second vacation, so this is going to be a TV only sort of event. The only way to make it work and fill the stands is to move the semi-finals on campus of the higher seed, or for cold weather teams the nearest NFL Dome (B1G has Indy, Detroit and Minneapolis; B1 has Jerry World, which could be useful for the likes of the Oklahoma and Kansas teams when it get pretty frigid on the plains). I'd roll the dice that Washington, Penn State (very possible) or some other frigid weather team not near a dome is the undisputed higher seed. But having the games on campus or a nearby NFL stadium will get a full crowd. There isn't a vacation aspect to these games, and unlike the NCG you wont have presales to "event" attenders (e.g., corporate types and super bowl type attendees) who will fill it up.

Frank the Tank went through that years ago, and the logic still stands. You want to add NEW value and not subtract from any existing value.

(07-05-2018 07:56 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 03:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

Right, so a larger playoff would have added meaning to their regular season, not detracted from it.

For some but not all. I doubt the G5 get a sniff regardless of whether it's 6, 8, or 16 (and, yes, I could see "the little guy" getting cut off quite easily). For them, it's a pressure cooker. For others...I bet it remains the same.

The current status is no different than the old structure, BCS and what came before it. It's still so dependent on when you lose (if you lose), favoring those who slip early rather than later, and, of course, creating an arbitrary magic number for consideration. Alabama can lose a game or two, but FSU losing one could be enough for losing consideration. That doesn't change with the bigger bracket. Unchanged, I'd bet, for a six-team model...maybe just a hint of a bump for an eight-team model.

For the G-5, it's no different than expanding the NCAA tournament to 64 from the older models. Power conferences saw more meaning to their seasons...they started gobbling up the at-large's. For the rest...AQ or die. At least the NIT gives the seasons for a lot of these schools something if they break down during a conference tournament.

(07-06-2018 12:47 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Wedge, you are incorrect, the New Years Day traditions wont give way.

Those Bowl games deliver way too much money to be broken. They have been fully incorporated into the playoffs and that will remain. They are traditions that get alumni to travel during their Christmas/New Years break and spend a week in the tourist town. Way too much money and sponsorship you'd be throwing away. No alumni will know if their team is going to make it to one of those 4 New Years Bowls, so they wont vacation there, and many more of the tickets will be locals buying on the cheap. In effect you will throw away at least as much money ($that $39m figure) by playing a week earlier. So that WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

The most logical way to deal with it is push back the National Championship game another week into January. People will still attend this game no matter when it happens, January 15th or January 8th. The value added comes from making 4 of the NY6 playoffs instead of 2 (more interest) and in adding two first weekend of January (around the 7th) into two Playoff games.

The problem is where to hold those semi-final games. This is too short a turn around for alumni to book a second vacation, so this is going to be a TV only sort of event. The only way to make it work and fill the stands is to move the semi-finals on campus of the higher seed, or for cold weather teams the nearest NFL Dome (B1G has Indy, Detroit and Minneapolis; B1 has Jerry World, which could be useful for the likes of the Oklahoma and Kansas teams when it get pretty frigid on the plains). I'd roll the dice that Washington, Penn State (very possible) or some other frigid weather team not near a dome is the undisputed higher seed. But having the games on campus or a nearby NFL stadium will get a full crowd. There isn't a vacation aspect to these games, and unlike the NCG you wont have presales to "event" attenders (e.g., corporate types and super bowl type attendees) who will fill it up.

Frank the Tank went through that years ago, and the logic still stands. You want to add NEW value and not subtract from any existing value.

I don't know if that work for all schools to go to the nearest NFL stadium. Sure that would work for schools like Minnesota or Purdue that are less than an hour from an NFL dome. Some schools like Nebraska I guess would rather modify it's own stadium with required heaters to play at home. Some schools might just say let's fly somewhere warm (again).

The problem with turn around time can be easily solved by making the games 2 weeks apart. Quarters on New Years. Semi in middle of January. NCG on last Saturday of January.

(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.

The ONE thing to realize in the "auto-bid" discussion...some of the CCGs are currently "must see" TV. For example, last year, Ohio State versus Wisconsin--the winner MIGHT get in the playoff if they look great in that game. But it wasn't "must see" TV.

If there is an auto-bid available, that game becomes a de facto "sweet 16" game. Winner advances and loser PROBABLY goes home. And who controls 100% of that money? The Big Ten.

It's really the next master step for P5 conferences. Control 100% of the profit for a "round of 16" game. Then, you get a GUARANTEED share of the CFP "round of 8" game...plus there is always a good chance that a P5 school might get a SECOND team in that round as well.