This is the type of year why we don't have an expanded playoff. There is and has been high stakes games all year. You put in an expanded playoff and much of that value most of the season is gone even if you get a higher playoff check.

(11-19-2018 02:10 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Just for sake of argument, say Georgia upsets 'Bama in the CCG. Then what happens???

It depends on what else happens. E.g., if Alabama loses to Georgia in triple overtime, while Michigan barely squeaks past Northwestern in CCG, that's one thing.

If Michigan beats Ohio State and NW by huge margins, while Georgia crushes Alabama, that's another.

To me, UCF being 'left out' again won't have any impetus towards an expanded playoff. Nobody cares.

The bigger threat is Notre Dame making the playoffs, as that would mean for the second straight year at least two P5 conferences would be left out.

If e.g. the PAC and Big 12 come to believe they will be left out more years than not, that will build internal P5 pressure to expand.

Expansion to the playoff in the immediate term will be incredibly difficult. For one, you would be adding length to the season, which as good as it would be for fans adds a number of logistical issues. If, by default, the season just gets extended for the sake of a playoff, you are looking at 14/15/16 games for the champion, while also adding the number of overall weeks (assuming that doesn't get shortened). If the season does get shortened, then you are taking away home game opportunities for the power conferences, which as much as fans want to say how unjust and unfair the structure is (even though the G5 signed off on the current structure), they would be losing revenue in those potential home games (which there is no comparison for the G5).

The other reality is that no matter how many teams you allow in, there will always be arguments about who is left out. When it went to four, the prevailing argument was that being the number #5 team and getting left out is better for perception purposes rather than the #3 team that is left out (which is still true).

If the playoff gets expanded to six slots, you would get five automatic spots for the P5, along with a wildcard or G5/Independent slot. However, even under this year's format, Notre Dame - not UCF - would get that spot, which would still cause the uproar for the AAC that is currently being utilized. Conversely, Houston undoubtedly gets into the playoff in '16 had they run the tables due to their schedule. Cincinnati also appears to schedule tough OOC opponents too (UCLA, Ohio State, Miami and Marshall). USF has Wisconsin, BYU and Georgia Tech next year. UCF, next year, has Florida A&M and FAU on its OOC schedule (along with Stanford and Pittsburgh). They should be, even if they are buy games, schedule nothing but P5 opponents at every opportunity they get. There is no reason that there is an FCS opponent on there. Alabama and the SEC can get away with that, the AAC cannot.

I think the bigger argument should how non-P5 teams schedule games. Notre Dame has an elite power conference schedule every year despite not being in a power conference, and with their success this year, they are in prime position for a playoff spot.

(11-19-2018 09:05 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Expansion to the playoff in the immediate term will be incredibly difficult.

Yes, I think we are all talking about what will happen in 2025. There won't be any change to the system until the current contract expires.

(11-18-2018 04:53 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  I would rather see a G5 tourney as none are ever going to the CFP. I used to be against this, but seeing the same teams year after year changed my mind. In fact, most P5 teams will have no chance at CFP. also, doing this tourney would be a way for UCF to actually win a national title.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This would be FAR more interesting to me than the current meaningless bowl system for G5, particularly if the championship game could be one of the NY 6 bowl games. That would mean one less P5 team in a NY6 game, but might be acceptable if the money was right. Do an 8 team playoff, with 5 conference champs, and 3 at large. I think an idea whose time has come.

(11-19-2018 09:05 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Expansion to the playoff in the immediate term will be incredibly difficult. For one, you would be adding length to the season, which as good as it would be for fans adds a number of logistical issues. If, by default, the season just gets extended for the sake of a playoff, you are looking at 14/15/16 games for the champion, while also adding the number of overall weeks (assuming that doesn't get shortened). If the season does get shortened, then you are taking away home game opportunities for the power conferences, which as much as fans want to say how unjust and unfair the structure is (even though the G5 signed off on the current structure), they would be losing revenue in those potential home games (which there is no comparison for the G5).

The other reality is that no matter how many teams you allow in, there will always be arguments about who is left out. When it went to four, the prevailing argument was that being the number #5 team and getting left out is better for perception purposes rather than the #3 team that is left out (which is still true).

If the playoff gets expanded to six slots, you would get five automatic spots for the P5, along with a wildcard or G5/Independent slot. However, even under this year's format, Notre Dame - not UCF - would get that spot, which would still cause the uproar for the AAC that is currently being utilized. Conversely, Houston undoubtedly gets into the playoff in '16 had they run the tables due to their schedule. Cincinnati also appears to schedule tough OOC opponents too (UCLA, Ohio State, Miami and Marshall). USF has Wisconsin, BYU and Georgia Tech next year. UCF, next year, has Florida A&M and FAU on its OOC schedule (along with Stanford and Pittsburgh). They should be, even if they are buy games, schedule nothing but P5 opponents at every opportunity they get. There is no reason that there is an FCS opponent on there. Alabama and the SEC can get away with that, the AAC cannot.

I think the bigger argument should how non-P5 teams schedule games. Notre Dame has an elite power conference schedule every year despite not being in a power conference, and with their success this year, they are in prime position for a playoff spot.

Scheduling 4-P5 opponents every year is easier said than done. Things you have to consider is that slots are limited because some conferences have moved to 9 conference games; some P5 schools have regional OOC rivalries and philosophies; some P5 schools are unwilling to schedule the better G5 programs; and the fact that it is important for G5 schools to have home games as well to entertain and cultivate their fan base.

Using my own alma mater as an example, there are several regional P5 schools we would love to play every year only to be rebuffed for various reasons. In a perfect world, UC should be playing its historic rival Louisville frequently. In a perfect world we should also be playing Kentucky, Notre Dame, Indiana and Purdue frequently as well. The problem is those schools are unwilling to play UC not because they are "scared" but because it actually only benefits them to ignore us. So what is UC left to do--- I guess we can continue to try and schedule more P5 schools in other parts of the country but again it is hard because of the limited OOC slots to fill given all the other school's own scheduling priorities.

Cincinnati isn't the only one with the this problem. Both 'Bama and Auburn continue not to have anything to do with Troy or South Alabama, which is a real shame to me, IMO.

(11-19-2018 08:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, UCF being 'left out' again won't have any impetus towards an expanded playoff. Nobody cares.

The bigger threat is Notre Dame making the playoffs, as that would mean for the second straight year at least two P5 conferences would be left out.

If e.g. the PAC and Big 12 come to believe they will be left out more years than not, that will build internal P5 pressure to expand.

The 4 team playoff happened when the SEC and Big 10 commissioner sat down and decided how it would work.

SEC seems to be fine with 8. Big 10 is opposed. When both of those are on board it happens. If you want 8, you root for the Big 10 champ to be left out again.

Lots of sentiment towards 8 in the Big 12 and ACC. They would go along if SEC and Big 10 wanted to do it. Pac 12 has been very opposed, but with 4-1, they have to go along.

(11-19-2018 09:05 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Expansion to the playoff in the immediate term will be incredibly difficult. For one, you would be adding length to the season, which as good as it would be for fans adds a number of logistical issues. If, by default, the season just gets extended for the sake of a playoff, you are looking at 14/15/16 games for the champion, while also adding the number of overall weeks (assuming that doesn't get shortened). If the season does get shortened, then you are taking away home game opportunities for the power conferences, which as much as fans want to say how unjust and unfair the structure is (even though the G5 signed off on the current structure), they would be losing revenue in those potential home games (which there is no comparison for the G5).

The other reality is that no matter how many teams you allow in, there will always be arguments about who is left out. When it went to four, the prevailing argument was that being the number #5 team and getting left out is better for perception purposes rather than the #3 team that is left out (which is still true).

If the playoff gets expanded to six slots, you would get five automatic spots for the P5, along with a wildcard or G5/Independent slot. However, even under this year's format, Notre Dame - not UCF - would get that spot, which would still cause the uproar for the AAC that is currently being utilized. Conversely, Houston undoubtedly gets into the playoff in '16 had they run the tables due to their schedule. Cincinnati also appears to schedule tough OOC opponents too (UCLA, Ohio State, Miami and Marshall). USF has Wisconsin, BYU and Georgia Tech next year. UCF, next year, has Florida A&M and FAU on its OOC schedule (along with Stanford and Pittsburgh). They should be, even if they are buy games, schedule nothing but P5 opponents at every opportunity they get. There is no reason that there is an FCS opponent on there. Alabama and the SEC can get away with that, the AAC cannot.

I think the bigger argument should how non-P5 teams schedule games. Notre Dame has an elite power conference schedule every year despite not being in a power conference, and with their success this year, they are in prime position for a playoff spot.

There are only three logistical issues. One isn't important but to a bunch of old-time college administrators. That is how the bowls fit in. The second is not real important, getting attendance on 3 neutral site games or working out a home game round. Attendance for one round and the championship will be no problem, although the middle round (or first if its not on NYD) might have some issues. Still, they don't need full stadiums all 3 rounds and there will be a lot of local attendance. The one important issue is fitting the TV slots around the NFL playoffs. But they will figure out some adequate solution.

(11-20-2018 09:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 08:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, UCF being 'left out' again won't have any impetus towards an expanded playoff. Nobody cares.

The bigger threat is Notre Dame making the playoffs, as that would mean for the second straight year at least two P5 conferences would be left out.

If e.g. the PAC and Big 12 come to believe they will be left out more years than not, that will build internal P5 pressure to expand.

The 4 team playoff happened when the SEC and Big 10 commissioner sat down and decided how it would work.

SEC seems to be fine with 8. Big 10 is opposed. When both of those are on board it happens. If you want 8, you root for the Big 10 champ to be left out again.

Lots of sentiment towards 8 in the Big 12 and ACC. They would go along if SEC and Big 10 wanted to do it. Pac 12 has been very opposed, but with 4-1, they have to go along.

I really think that after the next round of realignment the P5 will be the P4. They'll keep it at a 4 team playoff and just roll the dice if ND happens to have a great year. I seriously doubt that the B1G or SEC gives a crap whether UCF or the G5 are butt-hurt about getting "left out"

All conference champs will have a seat. The problem solves itself.

(11-18-2018 05:18 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(11-18-2018 04:53 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  I would rather see a G5 tourney as none are ever going to the CFP. I used to be against this, but seeing the same teams year after year changed my mind. In fact, most P5 teams will have no chance at CFP. also, doing this tourney would be a way for UCF to actually win a national title.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree, I think a g4 playoff would be a beautiful thing for you and others like yourself, but the AAC has unequivocally rejected that idea. So if you must move forward with it ,then go for it. I'm sure Aresco would completely support the other four conferences anyway he could.

Oh right, your league is soooo much better than the MW.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(11-20-2018 06:14 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(11-18-2018 05:18 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(11-18-2018 04:53 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  I would rather see a G5 tourney as none are ever going to the CFP. I used to be against this, but seeing the same teams year after year changed my mind. In fact, most P5 teams will have no chance at CFP. also, doing this tourney would be a way for UCF to actually win a national title.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree, I think a g4 playoff would be a beautiful thing for you and others like yourself, but the AAC has unequivocally rejected that idea. So if you must move forward with it ,then go for it. I'm sure Aresco would completely support the other four conferences anyway he could.

Oh right, your league is soooo much better than the MW.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Since the AAC began, they are 7-9 against the Mountain West in regular season games (0-3 this season).

Multiple playoff snubs would surely have the PAC 12, Big 12, and Big Ten upset. The G5 would love to have a model that gives them a real shot at a national title rather than a theoretical one inhibited by the glass ceiling the committee places on them.

As I understand, each P5 gets 2 votes on playoff matters. G5s get one vote. If the G5s and those 3 leagues all agree that they want 8 teams they have the votes to make it happen.

(11-19-2018 12:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-18-2018 08:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Nope. We have 3 which right now are indisputable locks (Alabama, Clemson, and Notre Dame) and all will be heavily favored to win out.

Then we have 4 playing for the 4th slot. Ohio State and Michigan will eliminate one and the winner has to get by Northwestern. Oklahoma has to get by WVU in Morgantown and then win the CCG. Washington State needs to get past their main nemesis, Washington who does have a defense and then win the CCG. The odds are there will be no more than 2 to choose from and I don't see a big squabble brewing over that right now.

My point is there are no good cases to be made for enough slots to justify expanding the CFP.

Remember the first playoff when people thought Ohio St. didn't belong?
How many times have the #1 seeds won?

Exactly. Half the time in the CFP era a team has won the the national championship that wouldnt even have been allowed to compete for the trophy in the BCS era. If it expands to 8--a team from the bottom 4 seeds will probably win it within the first 3 or 4 years.

(11-19-2018 12:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-18-2018 08:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Nope. We have 3 which right now are indisputable locks (Alabama, Clemson, and Notre Dame) and all will be heavily favored to win out.

Then we have 4 playing for the 4th slot. Ohio State and Michigan will eliminate one and the winner has to get by Northwestern. Oklahoma has to get by WVU in Morgantown and then win the CCG. Washington State needs to get past their main nemesis, Washington who does have a defense and then win the CCG. The odds are there will be no more than 2 to choose from and I don't see a big squabble brewing over that right now.

My point is there are no good cases to be made for enough slots to justify expanding the CFP.

Remember the first playoff when people thought Ohio St. didn't belong?
How many times have the #1 seeds won?

If Bama loses in the playoffs........ the #1 seed will forever be known as the cursed seed.

(11-20-2018 08:51 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Multiple playoff snubs would surely have the PAC 12, Big 12, and Big Ten upset. The G5 would love to have a model that gives them a real shot at a national title rather than a theoretical one inhibited by the glass ceiling the committee places on them.

As I understand, each P5 gets 2 votes on playoff matters. G5s get one vote. If the G5s and those 3 leagues all agree that they want 8 teams they have the votes to make it happen.

If the SEC and Big 10 don't both agree to it, it won't happen, no matter what the formal voting rules are. The SEC will be pretty easy to convince.

(11-21-2018 12:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 12:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-18-2018 08:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Nope. We have 3 which right now are indisputable locks (Alabama, Clemson, and Notre Dame) and all will be heavily favored to win out.

Then we have 4 playing for the 4th slot. Ohio State and Michigan will eliminate one and the winner has to get by Northwestern. Oklahoma has to get by WVU in Morgantown and then win the CCG. Washington State needs to get past their main nemesis, Washington who does have a defense and then win the CCG. The odds are there will be no more than 2 to choose from and I don't see a big squabble brewing over that right now.

My point is there are no good cases to be made for enough slots to justify expanding the CFP.

Remember the first playoff when people thought Ohio St. didn't belong?
How many times have the #1 seeds won?

Exactly. Half the time in the CFP era a team has won the the national championship that wouldnt even have been allowed to compete for the trophy in the BCS era. If it expands to 8--a team from the bottom 4 seeds will probably win it within the first 3 or 4 years.

I think TCU could have won it that first year and they got left out as #6.

Dream scenario for UCF...

1. OU Beats WVU, loses to UT in the in Big 12 CCG
2. WSU loses to Washington
3. OSU loses to UM
4. UGA Loses to Bama
5. Clemson loses to Pitt in ACC title game

Doesn't sound as crazy as it does, does it?