CFP

Donate To GopherHole
A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
Problem with expansion is how it will work.

ESPN / SEC will want it to be purely CFP rankings so they can cram as many SEC teams in the playoffs.

The other conferences are very wary of a system ESPN / the SEC runs and stands to benefit from picking their own winners….
Click to expand...
Pretty simply put they need and objective formula.
an objective formula will likely favor the SEC and big ten because those are usually, in that order, the deepest two conference
 

discochris said:
I mean currently. It's almost impossible (almost) for a G5 to crack the top four, though it may well happen this year.

But I still think that all FBS conference champions should get an auto bid. If that means UTSA gets waxed in the first round, so be it.
Click to expand...
Going from "it's almost impossible for a G5 champion to crack the top 4 --> every G5 needs to have an auto-bid in a 12 team playoff", in one step, is far too big a leap.

It's not on the table.

G5 has gained money and access, incrementally, in every new iteration of the major college football post season. Every time, every new contract, they've gained something out of it, more than they had in the previous version.

They will gain another increment, when the 12 team playoff awards auto-bids to six conference champions in some form.
 
Last edited:

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
Problem with expansion is how it will work.

ESPN / SEC will want it to be purely CFP rankings so they can cram as many SEC teams in the playoffs.

The other conferences are very wary of a system ESPN / the SEC runs and stands to benefit from picking their own winners….
Click to expand...
It's going to be six conference champions. No matter if that's five set-in-stone for the P5 or just the best six ... the SEC can only get one out of that.

The matter entirely will be if the rest of the conferences can get enough votes to force there being a cap on the number of teams from one conference, and what that number is (2, 3, 4?), or not at all.
 

If they want to alter the setup during this current contract that goes on for another four seasons after this one (through the 2025 season, with early 2026 bowl dates), it has to be a unanimous vote of the 11 voters (10 confs + Notre Dame).

But once that contract is up, I don't think they need a unanimous vote for the next contract.
 

I think there's a good chance that the non-SEC conferences will insist on a cap of the number of teams per conference that gets into the revised playoff. I'm torn on that personally because you could exclude a deserving team from an at-large bid, letting a lesser team in because of the cap. But at the same time, I suspect everyone who is not an SEC fan doesn't want to see them stack the deck either. A cap of 3 seems like the right compromise.

As far as Notre Dame goes, I'm tired of college football kowtowing to them. Why should one school have as much influence on the voting as an entire conference. Screw them. For voting purposes, make them vote with the ACC.
 


discochris said:
I think there's a good chance that the non-SEC conferences will insist on a cap of the number of teams per conference that gets into the revised playoff. I'm torn on that personally because you could exclude a deserving team from an at-large bid, letting a lesser team in because of the cap. But at the same time, I suspect everyone who is not an SEC fan doesn't want to see them stack the deck either. A cap of 3 seems like the right compromise.

As far as Notre Dame goes, I'm tired of college football kowtowing to them. Why should one school have as much influence on the voting as an entire conference. Screw them. For voting purposes, make them vote with the ACC.
Click to expand...
I'm a big fan of "win your conference if you want in for sure".

No problem with some at large bids beyond that .... but only after the conference champs get seeded.

Yeah someone could get in with a wonky conference record... but conference titles should matter.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
I'm a big fan of "win your conference if you want in for sure".

No problem with some at large bids beyond that .... but only after the conference champs get seeded.

Yeah someone could get in with a wonky conference record... but conference titles should matter.
Click to expand...
I agree with this 100%.
 

I don't see the CFP going the route of conference auto bids. It puts the soon-to-be-massive SEC at a disadvantage and gives weight to the smaller conferences. The SEC would fight that tooth and nail and they have a lot of sway.
 

FormerFatOL said:
I don't see the CFP going the route of conference auto bids. It puts the soon-to-be-massive SEC at a disadvantage and gives weight to the smaller conferences. The SEC would fight that tooth and nail and they have a lot of sway.
Click to expand...
I doubt as much sway as the alliance....

We'll see what happens but I'm not sure the SEC can impose their will. The other conferences already saw taking Texas and Oklahoma as a real threat to everyone else.

The alliance already agreed not to create chaos and poch the B12 to death, and word has it they're opposed to letting ESPN run the CFP show alone after the contract runs out.
 



I think they're stuck between a rock and hard place -- for trying to expand during the current contract.

On one hand: they're leaving money on the table, every year it isn't expanded. They know this. They hate doing that. ESPN is ready to open the checkbook, for more playoff games, as soon as possible.


But on the other hand, the SEC knows it has a 1 vote veto, if the rest of the voters won't take it or leave it.


And ESPN wants to maximize its revenue out of the current contract, where it knows it has a monopoly, and it knows very likely the next contract is going to be split up to multiple TV partners.

So ESPN is just going to want to get as many big time programs (= big time ratings) as possible.
 

SEC knows the gamble it is taking: it has a lot of "mouths to feed". Big time programs with big time egos, whose fans think they should be in the playoff every year.

When you've got the fanbases of: Texas, OU, TA&M, LSU, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida ... all under the same roof.

2 teams per year in a 12 team playoff is not going to get it done. I think bare minimum they need three and will push for four.
 

It will probably be 12 teams but I still like 8. 5 Power conference champions plus top G5 and 2 at large. No more than 2 from any conference. I don't like 4 teams having a 1st round bye and if your not top 2 in your conference, you shouldn't be in the playoffs anyway.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
I'm a big fan of "win your conference if you want in for sure".

No problem with some at large bids beyond that .... but only after the conference champs get seeded.

Yeah someone could get in with a wonky conference record... but conference titles should matter.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the thing -- and Notre Dame is just fine with it.

They're willing to accept a lower percentage chance of making the playoff, in exchange for independence.


They'll only join a conference if they are totally locked out.
 



discochris said:
I think there's a good chance that the non-SEC conferences will insist on a cap of the number of teams per conference that gets into the revised playoff. I'm torn on that personally because you could exclude a deserving team from an at-large bid, letting a lesser team in because of the cap. But at the same time, I suspect everyone who is not an SEC fan doesn't want to see them stack the deck either. A cap of 3 seems like the right compromise.

As far as Notre Dame goes, I'm tired of college football kowtowing to them. Why should one school have as much influence on the voting as an entire conference. Screw them. For voting purposes, make them vote with the ACC.
Click to expand...
I mean if you can’t get top 3 in your conference you probably aren’t the national champion.

I would guess the 9 conferences other than the SEC want objective rules for entrance to the tourney

not just who a group of 15 feels is better
 

TNGophfan said:
It will probably be 12 teams but I still like 8. 5 Power conference champions plus top G5 and 2 at large. No more than 2 from any conference. I don't like 4 teams having a 1st round bye and if your not top 2 in your conference, you shouldn't be in the playoffs anyway.
Click to expand...
8 is much easier to not change the structure much.
Basically at 8 you play 4 games the Saturday after conference championships at home fields and leave everything else the same.
 

Some guy said:
8 is much easier to not change the structure much.
Basically at 8 you play 4 games the Saturday after conference championships at home fields and leave everything else the same.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Then 2 weeks off before semi's.
 

TNGophfan said:
Agreed. Then 2 weeks off before semi's.
Click to expand...
And it only requires Up 4 for stadiums to have “winterization” issues…

games in the south and west won’t.
Teams in the Midwest only have to keep stadiums open an extra two weeks past thanksgiving
 


Keep talking about an 8 team playoff. Knock yourself out.

Might as well discuss a 16 and hell 24 team playoff, too!


None are on the table.
 

MplsGopher said:
This is exactly the thing -- and Notre Dame is just fine with it.

They're willing to accept a lower percentage chance of making the playoff, in exchange for independence.


They'll only join a conference if they are totally locked out.
Click to expand...
This is why the big ten should make another run at Notre dame to join the conference. I think the Irish and maybe BYU could be coaxed/coerced to join neither of those teams will have a shot at the national title without a conference
 

The prez sez said:
This is why the big ten should make another run at Notre dame to join the conference. I think the Irish and maybe BYU could be coaxed/coerced to join neither of those teams will have a shot at the national title without a conference
Click to expand...
BYU is joining the Big 12. I believe ND has an agreement in place for now that states if they are to join a conference for football, it must be the ACC.
 


discochris said:
It seems the commissioners are meeting now on this if the article is correct.

www.si.com

Commissioners Mull Alternate 12-Team Playoff Model

The Pac-12, Big Ten and ACC have proposed a new 12-team playoff format, sources tell Sports Illustrated.
www.si.com www.si.com
Click to expand...
Commissioners are expected to meet again Dec. 1-2 in Dallas to further explore what appears to be a trio of options: (1) remain at four teams through 2025, the last year of the CFP’s contract with ESPN; (2) approve the subcommittee’s 12-team format; or (3) approve the alternate 12-team model guaranteeing bids to Power 5 champions. Any approved proposal needs the OK from the CFP Board of Managers, a group of school presidents and the ultimate decision-makers in the process.

“It’s 12 or back to four,” one athletic director with knowledge of the discussions told SI.


Basically comes down to: leave money on the table, or let the SEC get 3-4 teams out of 12 in the playoff each year.

Guessing they go with the latter.


Granted, the G5 may have a bone to pick regarding (1) vs (2), as (1), in theory, could allow for multiple G5 champions to get auto-bids. Unlikely, but possible.

(2) is the most reasonable model.
 

In the case of (2):

The subcommittee’s proposal gives automatic access to the six highest-ranked conference champions. Each format completes the field with six at-large selections based on rankings.

This could absolutely result in multiple G5 auto bids. It would have happened last season.

That season, the Pac-12 champion, Oregon, would have been surpassed by two Group of 5 champions (Cincinnati and Coastal Carolina).
 

discochris said:
In the case of (2):

The subcommittee’s proposal gives automatic access to the six highest-ranked conference champions. Each format completes the field with six at-large selections based on rankings.

This could absolutely result in multiple G5 auto bids. It would have happened last season.

That season, the Pac-12 champion, Oregon, would have been surpassed by two Group of 5 champions (Cincinnati and Coastal Carolina).
Click to expand...
I tend to like this the best. Getting 2 G5 teams is not likely, unless P5 teams are willing to schedule some of the best G5 teams early in the season.

2021- Cinci only shot
2020- Teams didn't play complete season and schedules were all over the board.
2019- Memphis was #17
2018- UCF #8 next team was Fresno at #21
2017- UCF #12 next team was Memphis at #20
2016- Western Mich at #15
2015- Houston at #18
 

MaxyJR1 said:
I tend to like this the best. Getting 2 G5 teams is not likely, unless P5 teams are willing to schedule some of the best G5 teams early in the season.

2021- Cinci only shot
2020- Teams didn't play complete season and schedules were all over the board.
2019- Memphis was #17
2018- UCF #8 next team was Fresno at #21
2017- UCF #12 next team was Memphis at #20
2016- Western Mich at #15
2015- Houston at #18
Click to expand...
I like this best as well (besides my all champions get auto bids idea).

The other scenario that would make multiple G5's get in, is if a weaker team - say ranked 20th, won a weak division, and then upset a strong team in the conference title game, getting the auto-bid. There could definitely be two G5's ranked ahead of them.
 

discochris said:
I like this best as well (besides my all champions get auto bids idea).

The other scenario that would make multiple G5's get in, is if a weaker team - say ranked 20th, won a weak division, and then upset a strong team in the conference title game, getting the auto-bid. There could definitely be two G5's ranked ahead of them.
Click to expand...
They might want the “rankings” to be something not so subjective to agree.

for instance, had UTSA won and finished 13-0 they’d be right in the mix with the pac 12 champ in the rankings. The G5 would be smart for pushing for on objective criteria for the rankings rather than the committee rankings. Even saying the average of the AP poll and CFP rankings would be more advantageous to the G5
 

Some guy said:
They might want the “rankings” to be something not so subjective to agree.

for instance, had UTSA won and finished 13-0 they’d be right in the mix with the pac 12 champ in the rankings. The G5 would be smart for pushing for on objective criteria for the rankings rather than the committee rankings. Even saying the average of the AP poll and CFP rankings would be more advantageous to the G5
Click to expand...
I agree. Didn't the BCS have some kind of actual formula?
 


FormerFatOL said:
I don't see the CFP going the route of conference auto bids. It puts the soon-to-be-massive SEC at a disadvantage and gives weight to the smaller conferences. The SEC would fight that tooth and nail and they have a lot of sway.
Click to expand...
Th SEC has power with ESPN, the network that pumps them up And makes money off their network.

Remember that little item with the ACC, B1G and PAC12 back a month ago? They formed a conference alliance that has significantly more voting impact than the SEC. They relegated the sec to a regional conference compared to the National Alliance.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom