Not a good deal for the Big 12 and ACC. The Big 10 and SEC will average around 4 bids a year, but the Big 12 and ACC will average 2. So it doesn't give them anything they wouldn't earn anyway, creates a perception gap and devalues the conference championship game.

ooh, i actually like this. B1G and SEC would move toward a CCG with semifinals, meaning only 3 of the 4 teams playing would be in, giving a lot of meaning to that semifinal game.

And sharing the AQs around gives the Big XII and ACC some life in a P2 world.

For the ACC and Big XII, they could still add meaning to their CCG by only giving an autobid to their champion. The other autobid could be based on rankings. So the loser of the CCG wouldn't be guaranteed a bid in.

Adjust that format to two AQ bids for the G5 along with two at-large bids and it would be perfect!

(02-28-2024 07:10 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Adjust that format to two AQ bids for the G5 and two at-large bids and it would be perfect!

Yeah keep dreaming.

Well if we do try to cut the committee out as much as possible and accept the risk to the CCG, I like my 1 play-in game model.

Seeds 1-3 top 3 conference champions, bye to quarterfinals, will almost always include SEC and Big 10
#4 conference champion seeded no lower than 8 so they get a 1st round home game.
#5 conference champion seeded no lower than 12, so they don't have a play-in game.
4 conference runnerups seeded 5 to 12, so no play-in game if you play in CCG.
5 wildcards seeded from 5 to 14.

#13-#14 in play-in.
1st round 8-9, 7-10, 6-11, 5-12, 4-13/14 winner
Quarterfinals around NYD 1-8/9 winner, 2-7/10 winner, 3-6/11 winner, 4/13/14 winner-5/12 winner.

(02-28-2024 07:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  Not a good deal for the Big 12 and ACC. The Big 10 and SEC will average around 4 bids a year, but the Big 12 and ACC will average 2. So it doesn't give them anything they wouldn't earn anyway, creates a perception gap and devalues the conference championship game.

No, it gives the Big 12 and ACC a guaranteed second bid, which they often wouldn't get as an at-large.

It's horrible for marketing the system, and limits the at-larges the SEC especially can grab.

I can't imagine why the SEC would agree to this. they don't need 3 AQ's, at all.

(02-28-2024 07:08 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  For the ACC and Big XII, they could still add meaning to their CCG by only giving an autobid to their champion. The other autobid could be based on rankings. So the loser of the CCG wouldn't be guaranteed a bid in.

I bet you give it to the championship game loser and let any other highly ranked member get one of the 3 at large. The auto qualifiers would be the "earn it on the field" part. The at large are the "dazzle a commitee" part.

The only way I see this adding up to 14 is that the top 5 champions and the top non-champion get a bye and the lowest 8 non-champions play-in.

(02-28-2024 07:17 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 07:08 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  For the ACC and Big XII, they could still add meaning to their CCG by only giving an autobid to their champion. The other autobid could be based on rankings. So the loser of the CCG wouldn't be guaranteed a bid in.

I bet you give it to the championship game loser and let any other highly ranked member get one of the 3 at large. The auto qualifiers would be the "earn it on the field" part. The auto qualifiers are the "dazzle a commitee" part.

The only way I see this adding up to 14 is that the top 5 champions and the top non-champion get a bye and the lowest 8 non-champions play-in.

yeah don't see that at all. for one you have 6 byes and then 4 play-ins. That's 10 teams. That just doesn't work. And don't think for a second that the SEC or Big Ten would agree to something that puts their 2nd place team possibly behind a G5 champ That is looney bin stuff.

(02-28-2024 07:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well if we do try to cut the committee out as much as possible

.....if that's the "problem", all you have to do is bring back the BCS formula (the final version). Or pick a dozen statistics professors from a dozen FBS schools and have them come up with something.

(02-28-2024 07:20 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 07:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well if we do try to cut the committee out as much as possible

.....if that's the "problem", all you have to do is bring back the BCS formula (the final version). Or pick a dozen statistics professors from a dozen FBS schools and have them come up with something.

of course the dirty secret is the BCS and the committee 95%+ of the time.

(02-28-2024 07:20 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 07:17 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 07:08 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  For the ACC and Big XII, they could still add meaning to their CCG by only giving an autobid to their champion. The other autobid could be based on rankings. So the loser of the CCG wouldn't be guaranteed a bid in.

I bet you give it to the championship game loser and let any other highly ranked member get one of the 3 at large. The auto qualifiers would be the "earn it on the field" part. The auto qualifiers are the "dazzle a commitee" part.

The only way I see this adding up to 14 is that the top 5 champions and the top non-champion get a bye and the lowest 8 non-champions play-in.

yeah don't see that at all. for one you have 6 byes and then 4 play-ins. That's 10 teams. That just doesn't work. And don't think for a second that the SEC or Big Ten would agree to something that puts their 2nd place team possibly behind a G5 champ That is looney bin stuff.

It's the bottom 8 playing 2 rounds into the final 2 spots.

I don't see how they're getting to 14 without another round.

(02-28-2024 06:53 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

[#9@#8]@#1
[#10@#7]@#2
[[#14@#11]@#6]@#3
[[#13@#12]@#5]@#4

The first scheduling problem would be resolved by splitting them into AQ and AL, and seeding AQ and AL separately.

[AQ9@AQ8]@AQ1
[AQ10@AQ7]@AQ2
[[AL4@AL1]@AQ6]@AQ3
[[AL3@AL2]@AQ5]@AQ4

So the three at-large schools play in the play-in round, and they are guaranteed to not be in the CCG, so the play-in round can be the week after the CCG's.

Of course, that is four AL and no Go5 Champion 1 (GC1). If the Go5 is in the tag end of the AQ pool, that makes:

[AQ9@AQ8]@AQ1
[AQ10@AQ7]@AQ2
[[AL3@GC1]@AQ6]@AQ3
[[AL2@AL1]@AQ5]@AQ4

That's a problem with the Go5 playing the week after the CCG, unless the Go5 schedules are all moved back a week to allow their CCGs to be a week earlier.

Or you could arbitrarily put the G05 at the AQ10 spot, avoiding that problem:

[AQ9@AQ8]@AQ1
[GC1@AQ7]@AQ2
[[AL3@AQ10]@AQ6]@AQ3
[[AL2@AL1]@AQ5]@AQ4

You could give the Go5 to the AQ5 as a consolation for being the best CCG loser:

[AQ9@AQ8]@AQ1
[[AL3@AQ10]@AQ7]@AQ2
[[AL2@AL1]@AQ6]@AQ3
[GC1@AQ5]@AQ4

So it will be interesting to see how they handle the Group of 5 AQ when the model is finalized and it starts circulating in public.

(02-28-2024 07:24 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 07:20 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 07:17 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 07:08 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  For the ACC and Big XII, they could still add meaning to their CCG by only giving an autobid to their champion. The other autobid could be based on rankings. So the loser of the CCG wouldn't be guaranteed a bid in.

I bet you give it to the championship game loser and let any other highly ranked member get one of the 3 at large. The auto qualifiers would be the "earn it on the field" part. The auto qualifiers are the "dazzle a commitee" part.

The only way I see this adding up to 14 is that the top 5 champions and the top non-champion get a bye and the lowest 8 non-champions play-in.

yeah don't see that at all. for one you have 6 byes and then 4 play-ins. That's 10 teams. That just doesn't work. And don't think for a second that the SEC or Big Ten would agree to something that puts their 2nd place team possibly behind a G5 champ That is looney bin stuff.

It's the bottom 8 playing 2 rounds into the final 2 spots.

I don't see how they're getting to 14 without another round.

yeah the SEC and Big Ten aren't going to allow their 2nd place team to possibly be doing that **** when the G5 team is not playing. That frankly is just stupid. Why would the SEC or Big Ten, who have all the leverage, agree to that at all.

What you are saying is adding a round anyways. It'll probably be 14 vs 11 and 13 vs 12 and then round of 12 the next round. With the G5 champ as 14 seed and in that PIG.

(02-28-2024 07:16 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 07:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  Not a good deal for the Big 12 and ACC. The Big 10 and SEC will average around 4 bids a year, but the Big 12 and ACC will average 2. So it doesn't give them anything they wouldn't earn anyway, creates a perception gap and devalues the conference championship game.

No, it gives the Big 12 and ACC a guaranteed second bid, which they often wouldn't get as an at-large.

It's horrible for marketing the system, and limits the at-larges the SEC especially can grab. ...

Limit the SEC to no more than six schools in the CFP14? Heaven forfend!

(02-28-2024 07:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 07:24 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 07:20 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 07:17 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 07:08 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  For the ACC and Big XII, they could still add meaning to their CCG by only giving an autobid to their champion. The other autobid could be based on rankings. So the loser of the CCG wouldn't be guaranteed a bid in.

I bet you give it to the championship game loser and let any other highly ranked member get one of the 3 at large. The auto qualifiers would be the "earn it on the field" part. The auto qualifiers are the "dazzle a commitee" part.

The only way I see this adding up to 14 is that the top 5 champions and the top non-champion get a bye and the lowest 8 non-champions play-in.

yeah don't see that at all. for one you have 6 byes and then 4 play-ins. That's 10 teams. That just doesn't work. And don't think for a second that the SEC or Big Ten would agree to something that puts their 2nd place team possibly behind a G5 champ That is looney bin stuff.

It's the bottom 8 playing 2 rounds into the final 2 spots.

I don't see how they're getting to 14 without another round.

yeah the SEC and Big Ten aren't going to allow their 2nd place team to possibly be doing that **** when the G5 team is not playing. That frankly is just stupid. Why would the SEC or Big Ten, who have all the leverage, agree to that at all.

What you are saying is adding a round anyways. It'll probably be 14 vs 11 and 13 vs 12 and then round of 12 the next round. With the G5 champ as 14 seed and in that PIG.

I am saying they're going to add all round. You're too stupid to figure that out.

Not surprised that this is how the proposal is shaking out - we were discussing this as possible (likely?) outcome last week. Of course, LOL at how the Big Ten and SEC are “compromising” by “only” getting 3 AQs instead of the originally requested 4 AQs. The Big Ten and SEC are in “Darth Vader in The Empire Strikes Back” Mode: the deal keeps getting worse for everyone else and they’re praying that it’s not altered any further.

(02-28-2024 07:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  Not a good deal for the Big 12 and ACC.

In the P2 resources gap era, I would guess the number of years the ACC/XII has only 1 team in the top-13 will be more than the number of years the ACC/XII have 3 teams in the top-13. In that case, this format helps them because they're guaranteed a 2nd autobid.