+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: AAC Conference Talk (/forum-409.html)
+---- Thread: With CFP expansion now considered likely, which kind of playoff would you choose? (/thread-915846.html)
With CFP expansion now considered likely, which kind of playoff would you choose? - jedclampett - 01-31-2021 02:54 AM
As noted above, Commissioner Aresco has made it clear that CFP expansion could hasten the move to replace Connecticut and/or to expand AAC membership to 14.
Here are some excerpts from an article that confirms that the CFP may be likely to expand in the future (possibly in 2021-22), but suggests the possibility of an expansion to a 6, rather than 8-team playoff system, which would only make it slightly more feasible for a non-P5 team to qualify:
Quote:Expanding the College Football Playoff to eight will not solve its issues, but these alterations may
(excerpts)
By Dennis Dodd CBSSports.com
Jan 13, 2021 at 11:25 am ET
Seven years into the 12-year CFP agreement with ESPN, there seems to be almost universal agreement the four-team playoff will be expanded in the future. FBS coaches voted Tuesday showing "overwhelming support" for an expanded playoff during the annual American Football Coaches Association convention.
...so expansion is on the table. But when, how and how many teams?
Sure, the Group of Five would have a likelier path, but let's look at an eight-team playoff based on the final CFP Rankings of the 2020 season.
(1) Alabama vs. (8) Cincinnati
(4) Notre Dame vs. (5) Texas A&M
(2) Clemson vs. (7) Florida
(3) Ohio State vs. (6) Oklahoma
Notice anything? The Power Five picks up three more playoff spots, and the SEC gets three teams in. With the ACC getting two (Notre Dame was aligned in 2020), that only leaves three spots for everyone else...
................................................................................................................
NOTE: ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH HAVING THESE TOP 8-RANKED TEAMS PLAY - - NOT NOTED BY THE AUTHOR - - IS THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY POSSIBLE FOR TWO SEC TEAMS (E.G., ALABAMA & FLORIDA) OR TWO ACC TEAMS (CLEMSON & NOTRE DAME) TO MEET IN THE CHAMPIONSHIP ROUND
THE NFL PREVENTS THIS FROM HAPPENING BY HAVING THE AFC & NFC CHAMPIONS PLAY IN THE NFL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME (SUPER BOWL).
................................................................................................................
"In the last month, it had become pretty clear [the playoff] is a [Power Five] invitational," AAC commissioner Mike Aresco said...That became clear again this year. Only 12 teams have played in the CFP in its seven-year history...
.
So what might work?
1. A six-team playoff: Expand by two teams (not four), adding two play-in games with the top teams receiving byes. That begins to address Group of Five concerns...
2. Move the CFP National Championship off Monday night:
3. Reduce the playoff-or-bust mentality:
4. Create more transparency:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/expanding-the-college-football-playoff-to-eight-will-not-solve-its-issues-but-these-alterations-may/
Dodd's confirmation of a likely expansion of the CFP system is somewhat encouraging from an AAC standpoint, but it wouldn't be nearly as beneficial as either a simple expansion to 8 teams or an expansion to 8 with an automatic bid going to the top G5 conference championship team.
Unfortunately, Dodd's proposed remedies, which wouldn't include automatic bids for conference champions, wouldn't be likely to result in anything more than a cosmetic improvement, since all of the teams in the CFP would continue to be selected by committee.
Another problem with a 6-team CFP is that the top two teams would get a round 1 bye, which would give them an unfair advantage, since they would only have to win two games to win the championship.
Merely increasing the transparency of weekly ratings, while beneficial, would be all-too-likely to exclude non-P5 teams in a 6-team system, and it wouldn't prevent the CFP from being dominated by one or two P5 conferences.
In Dodd's own example, a 6-team CFP would have included these teams in the past season:
................................................................................................................
1st round byes: Alabama & Clemson
1st round games:
(4) Notre Dame vs. (5) Texas A&M
(3) Ohio State vs. (6) Oklahoma
2nd round games:
Alabama vs. Notre Dame/TAMU winner (SEC vs. ACC or SEC team)
Clemson vs. Ohio St/Oklahoma winner (ACC vs. Big Ten or Big 12 team)
Championship game:
SEC or ACC team vs. SEC, ACC, Big Ten, or Big 12 team
Potential championship games between two teams from the same conference:
Alabama vs. Texas A&M
Clemson vs. Notre Dame
Total number of CFP games: 5 (3 rounds)
Number of conferences represented: Three.
Number of teams selected by committee: Four (100%).
................................................................................................................
Another obvious problem with Dodd's proposed remedy is that, in 2020-21, the field of playoff teams wouldn't have expanded at all beyond the narrow group of teams that have played in previous CFP series.
The biggest problem with Dodd's article is that - - throughout - - he seems to be much more concerned about which type of CFP system would be most agreeable to the top-tier P5 programs than he is about coming up with the best possible improvement to the CFP system.
................................................................................................................
An 5-1-2 type of CFP system would have resulted in a broader and more inclusive field of teams:
Conference champions: Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, (#10) Iowa State, (#17) USC, and (#8) Cincinnati
At-large teams: Notre Dame, Texas A&M
Round 1 2021 playoff games, based on 5-1-2 CFP system:
#1 Alabama vs. #17 USC
#2 Clemson vs. #10 Iowa State
#3 OSU vs. #8 Cincinnati
#4 Notre Dame vs. #5 Texas A&M
Total number of CFP games: 7 (3 rounds)
Number of conferences represented: Six.
Number of teams selected by committee: Two (25%).
................................................................................................................
Note that, unlike Dodd's proposed 6-team CFP, which would have made it very possible for two SEC teams - - or two ACC - - teams to play in the national championship game, the 5-1-2 CFP system would have made such a scenario much less likely, since, for this to happen:
Both Clemson and Notre Dame would have had to win their first and second round games, and, if Alabama or TAMU had won their first round games, one or the other would have been eliminated in the semifinals.
Questions:
Would you have been interested in watching these four playoff games if they had been held?
#1 Alabama vs. #17 USC
#2 Clemson vs. #10 Iowa State
#3 OSU vs. #8 Cincinnati
#4 Notre Dame vs. #5 Texas A&M
RE: With CFP expansion now considered likely, which kind of playoff would you choose? - Tigermemphis - 01-31-2021 07:32 AM
(01-31-2021 02:54 AM)jedclampett Wrote: As noted above, Commissioner Aresco has made it clear that CFP expansion could hasten the move to replace Connecticut and/or to expand AAC membership to 14.
Here are some excerpts from an article that confirms that the CFP may be likely to expand in the future (possibly in 2021-22), but suggests the possibility of an expansion to a 6, rather than 8-team playoff system, which would only make it slightly more feasible for a non-P5 team to qualify:
Quote:Expanding the College Football Playoff to eight will not solve its issues, but these alterations may
(excerpts)
By Dennis Dodd CBSSports.com
Jan 13, 2021 at 11:25 am ET
Seven years into the 12-year CFP agreement with ESPN, there seems to be almost universal agreement the four-team playoff will be expanded in the future. FBS coaches voted Tuesday showing "overwhelming support" for an expanded playoff during the annual American Football Coaches Association convention.
...so expansion is on the table. But when, how and how many teams?
Sure, the Group of Five would have a likelier path, but let's look at an eight-team playoff based on the final CFP Rankings of the 2020 season.
(1) Alabama vs. (8) Cincinnati
(4) Notre Dame vs. (5) Texas A&M
(2) Clemson vs. (7) Florida
(3) Ohio State vs. (6) Oklahoma
Notice anything? The Power Five picks up three more playoff spots, and the SEC gets three teams in. With the ACC getting two (Notre Dame was aligned in 2020), that only leaves three spots for everyone else...
................................................................................................................
NOTE: ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH HAVING THESE TOP 8-RANKED TEAMS PLAY - - NOT NOTED BY THE AUTHOR - - IS THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY POSSIBLE FOR TWO SEC TEAMS (E.G., ALABAMA & FLORIDA) OR TWO ACC TEAMS (CLEMSON & NOTRE DAME) TO MEET IN THE CHAMPIONSHIP ROUND
THE NFL PREVENTS THIS FROM HAPPENING BY HAVING THE AFC & NFC CHAMPIONS PLAY IN THE NFL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME (SUPER BOWL).
................................................................................................................
"In the last month, it had become pretty clear [the playoff] is a [Power Five] invitational," AAC commissioner Mike Aresco said...That became clear again this year. Only 12 teams have played in the CFP in its seven-year history...
.
So what might work?
1. A six-team playoff: Expand by two teams (not four), adding two play-in games with the top teams receiving byes. That begins to address Group of Five concerns...
2. Move the CFP National Championship off Monday night:
3. Reduce the playoff-or-bust mentality:
4. Create more transparency:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/expanding-the-college-football-playoff-to-eight-will-not-solve-its-issues-but-these-alterations-may/
Dodd's confirmation of a likely expansion of the CFP system is somewhat encouraging from an AAC standpoint, but it wouldn't be nearly as beneficial as either a simple expansion to 8 teams or an expansion to 8 with an automatic bid going to the top G5 conference championship team.
Unfortunately, Dodd's proposed remedies, which wouldn't include automatic bids for conference champions, wouldn't be likely to result in anything more than a cosmetic improvement, since all of the teams in the CFP would continue to be selected by committee.
Another problem with a 6-team CFP is that the top two teams would get a round 1 bye, which would give them an unfair advantage, since they would only have to win two games to win the championship.
Merely increasing the transparency of weekly ratings, while beneficial, would be all-too-likely to exclude non-P5 teams in a 6-team system, and it wouldn't prevent the CFP from being dominated by one or two P5 conferences.
In Dodd's own example, a 6-team CFP would have included these teams in the past season:
................................................................................................................
1st round byes: Alabama & Clemson
1st round games:
(4) Notre Dame vs. (5) Texas A&M
(3) Ohio State vs. (6) Oklahoma
2nd round games:
Alabama vs. Notre Dame/TAMU winner (SEC vs. ACC or SEC team)
Clemson vs. Ohio St/Oklahoma winner (ACC vs. Big Ten or Big 12 team)
Championship game:
SEC or ACC team vs. SEC, ACC, Big Ten, or Big 12 team
Potential championship games between two teams from the same conference:
Alabama vs. Texas A&M
Clemson vs. Notre Dame
Total number of CFP games: 5 (3 rounds)
Number of conferences represented: Three.
Number of teams selected by committee: Four (100%).
................................................................................................................
Another obvious problem with Dodd's proposed remedy is that, in 2020-21, the field of playoff teams wouldn't have expanded at all beyond the narrow group of teams that have played in previous CFP series.
The biggest problem with Dodd's article is that - - throughout - - he seems to be much more concerned about which type of CFP system would be most agreeable to the top-tier P5 programs than he is about coming up with the best possible improvement to the CFP system.
................................................................................................................
An 8-1-2 type of CFP system would have resulted in a broader and more inclusive field of teams:
Conference champions: Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, (#10) Iowa State, (#17) USC, and (#8) Cincinnati
At-large teams: Notre Dame, Texas A&M
Round 1 2021 playoff games, based on 8-1-2 CFP system:
#1 Alabama vs. #17 USC
#2 Clemson vs. #10 Iowa State
#3 OSU vs. #8 Cincinnati
#4 Notre Dame vs. #5 Texas A&M
Total number of CFP games: 7 (3 rounds)
Number of conferences represented: Six.
Number of teams selected by committee: Two (25%).
................................................................................................................
Note that, unlike Dodd's proposed 6-team CFP, which would have made it very possible for two SEC teams - - or two ACC - - teams to play in the national championship game, the 8-1-2 CFP system would have made such a scenario much less likely, since, for this to happen:
Both Clemson and Notre Dame would have had to win their first and second round games, and, if Alabama or TAMU had won their first round games, one or the other would have been eliminated in the semifinals.
Questions:
Would you have been interested in watching these four playoff games if they had been held?
#1 Alabama vs. #17 USC
#2 Clemson vs. #10 Iowa State
#3 OSU vs. #8 Cincinnati
#4 Notre Dame vs. #5 Texas A&M
Answer: yes, see game on line 3
Game #1 curbstomp
Game #2 curbstomp
Game #3 possibly curbstomp but perhaps closer than most would think
Game #4 tossup (let's say TXAM)
Semifinal #1 Alabama vs TXAM---> Alabama by 10-14
Semifinal #2 Clemson vs OSU--> OSU easily
National Championship: same players, we know what happens.........but at least WE got/get a shot/chance which is how it should be and would generate more $$$
TM
RE: With CFP expansion now considered likely, which kind of playoff would you choose? - Chappy - 01-31-2021 08:49 AM
I think 5-1-2 is the most logical and 10-6 (all conference champs plus 6 at-large) is the most fair, so neither of those are likely to happen. CFP is reluctant to change, so it will probably grow to 6 teams next.
RE: With CFP expansion now considered likely, which kind of playoff would you choose? - quo vadis - 01-31-2021 08:52 AM
Straight 8 ....... Just pick the top 8 teams, no autobids for anyone.
I want the best teams in, not some PAC champ that everyone knows is the 23rd best team. And while nobody knows for sure who the "best" teams are, I have never believed CFB is rocket science, that's why all the ranking systems come up with pretty much the same teams.
That said, what is best for the AAC is clearly a 5-1-2 type arrangement, with autobids for the P5 champs and the highest-ranked G5 champ, as the AAC champ will likely get that 3/4 or so of the time, if history is any guide.
RE: With CFP expansion now considered likely, which kind of playoff would you choose? - slhNavy91 - 01-31-2021 09:10 AM
Thread marked with the basketball icon, so I didn't even click on it, much less post.
RE: With CFP expansion now considered likely, which kind of playoff would you choose? - J Coog - 01-31-2021 09:13 AM
16 teams, auto bids for conference champs, 4 at-large. Basically the FCS model
RE: With CFP expansion now considered likely, which kind of playoff would you choose? - UofMemphis - 01-31-2021 09:14 AM
https://csnbbs.com/thread-885467-post-16390296.html#pid16390296
I've supported a 6 team playoff for awhile now...you should get something for finishing #1/#2
RE: With CFP expansion now considered likely, which kind of playoff would you choose? - JHS55 - 01-31-2021 09:39 AM
(01-31-2021 09:13 AM)J Coog Wrote: 16 teams, auto bids for conference champs, 4 at-large. Basically the FCS modeli agree with this post here...
RE: With CFP expansion now considered likely, which kind of playoff would you choose? - Starfox207 - 01-31-2021 10:23 AM
I want a 6+1 playoff.
5 auto bids and AAC vs G4 playin for #6.
This signifies the tweener\ P6 advantage we have. Our conference plays in and has an autobid for the playin to game 6, and G4 share the other side of that.
This is what I call appropriate access for all, honestly.
RE: With CFP expansion now considered likely, which kind of playoff would you choose? - Cubanbull1 - 01-31-2021 10:52 AM
5-1-2
Make winning your conference important. With two non conference winners that’s enough.
I think this would be ok for those in P leagues since they are all guaranteed at least 1 rep every year
RE: With CFP expansion now considered likely, which kind of playoff would you choose? - NoQuarterBrigade - 01-31-2021 02:13 PM
None of the above.
24 teams. FCS format
First, Rewind the clock back to where they had 11 game seasons.
Draw down the bowls. Maybe make each conference championship a bowl game itself by moving some of these meaningless .com bowls over to fulfill that role.
Go to the FCS format, 24 teams. All conference champs (or maybe the top 8 since usually the top 8 fall in or close to the top 25) and the rest at-large bids. Proven. It works. Don’t believe the lies about scheduling. It can be done. That is why you would go back to 11 games to help with the scheduling and keeping the amount of games down. These are supposed to be really smart people, the ones who share in making these decisions. They could do it.
No more than 4 teams from any conference above 12 teams.
No more than 3 teams from any conference with 12 or less.
Play the first round 9-24 at college campuses.
I would incorporate the bowls in the playoff. Each bracket would be bowl named. Like Peach, Cotton, Orange, and Fiesta until you got down to 8 games which would be those actual bowl games. Maybe have a second round at current bowl sites. Make them like semi-finals to NY 6 bowls. Example: Dukes Mayo Peach Bowl semi-final game.
Make the Rose and the Sugar National Championship semi-final games. They could rotate the NY6 bowls each year.
And then the National Championship played wherever each year.
I know this sounds probably way over the top and bit of a dream. But every other team sport has a significantly larger playoff.
And we want a National Championship, not a SEC invitational.
It would make less players opt out, because they would have an opportunity to play for something meaningful.
And recruiting would not be funneled down to just the elites. The recruits would start spreading out more to other schools.
Okay, now it’s time to hide. Probably going to get a lot of blow back for this one.
RE: With CFP expansion now considered likely, which kind of playoff would you choose? - Chappy - 01-31-2021 02:14 PM
(01-31-2021 09:10 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote: Thread marked with the basketball icon, so I didn't even click on it, much less post.
um, then someone hacked your account!
RE: With CFP expansion now considered likely, which kind of playoff would you choose? - texoma - 01-31-2021 03:28 PM
(01-31-2021 02:54 AM)jedclampett Wrote: As noted above, Commissioner Aresco has made it clear that CFP expansion could hasten the move to replace Connecticut and/or to expand AAC membership to 14.
Here are some excerpts from an article that confirms that the CFP may be likely to expand in the future (possibly in 2021-22), but suggests the possibility of an expansion to a 6, rather than 8-team playoff system, which would only make it slightly more feasible for a non-P5 team to qualify:
Quote:Expanding the College Football Playoff to eight will not solve its issues, but these alterations may
(excerpts)
By Dennis Dodd CBSSports.com
Jan 13, 2021 at 11:25 am ET
Seven years into the 12-year CFP agreement with ESPN, there seems to be almost universal agreement the four-team playoff will be expanded in the future. FBS coaches voted Tuesday showing "overwhelming support" for an expanded playoff during the annual American Football Coaches Association convention.
...so expansion is on the table. But when, how and how many teams?
Sure, the Group of Five would have a likelier path, but let's look at an eight-team playoff based on the final CFP Rankings of the 2020 season.
(1) Alabama vs. (8) Cincinnati
(4) Notre Dame vs. (5) Texas A&M
(2) Clemson vs. (7) Florida
(3) Ohio State vs. (6) Oklahoma
Notice anything? The Power Five picks up three more playoff spots, and the SEC gets three teams in. With the ACC getting two (Notre Dame was aligned in 2020), that only leaves three spots for everyone else...
................................................................................................................
NOTE: ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH HAVING THESE TOP 8-RANKED TEAMS PLAY - - NOT NOTED BY THE AUTHOR - - IS THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY POSSIBLE FOR TWO SEC TEAMS (E.G., ALABAMA & FLORIDA) OR TWO ACC TEAMS (CLEMSON & NOTRE DAME) TO MEET IN THE CHAMPIONSHIP ROUND
THE NFL PREVENTS THIS FROM HAPPENING BY HAVING THE AFC & NFC CHAMPIONS PLAY IN THE NFL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME (SUPER BOWL).
................................................................................................................
"In the last month, it had become pretty clear [the playoff] is a [Power Five] invitational," AAC commissioner Mike Aresco said...That became clear again this year. Only 12 teams have played in the CFP in its seven-year history...
.
So what might work?
1. A six-team playoff: Expand by two teams (not four), adding two play-in games with the top teams receiving byes. That begins to address Group of Five concerns...
2. Move the CFP National Championship off Monday night:
3. Reduce the playoff-or-bust mentality:
4. Create more transparency:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/expanding-the-college-football-playoff-to-eight-will-not-solve-its-issues-but-these-alterations-may/
Dodd's confirmation of a likely expansion of the CFP system is somewhat encouraging from an AAC standpoint, but it wouldn't be nearly as beneficial as either a simple expansion to 8 teams or an expansion to 8 with an automatic bid going to the top G5 conference championship team.
Unfortunately, Dodd's proposed remedies, which wouldn't include automatic bids for conference champions, wouldn't be likely to result in anything more than a cosmetic improvement, since all of the teams in the CFP would continue to be selected by committee.
Another problem with a 6-team CFP is that the top two teams would get a round 1 bye, which would give them an unfair advantage, since they would only have to win two games to win the championship.
Merely increasing the transparency of weekly ratings, while beneficial, would be all-too-likely to exclude non-P5 teams in a 6-team system, and it wouldn't prevent the CFP from being dominated by one or two P5 conferences.
In Dodd's own example, a 6-team CFP would have included these teams in the past season:
................................................................................................................
1st round byes: Alabama & Clemson
1st round games:
(4) Notre Dame vs. (5) Texas A&M
(3) Ohio State vs. (6) Oklahoma
2nd round games:
Alabama vs. Notre Dame/TAMU winner (SEC vs. ACC or SEC team)
Clemson vs. Ohio St/Oklahoma winner (ACC vs. Big Ten or Big 12 team)
Championship game:
SEC or ACC team vs. SEC, ACC, Big Ten, or Big 12 team
Potential championship games between two teams from the same conference:
Alabama vs. Texas A&M
Clemson vs. Notre Dame
Total number of CFP games: 5 (3 rounds)
Number of conferences represented: Three.
Number of teams selected by committee: Four (100%).
................................................................................................................
Another obvious problem with Dodd's proposed remedy is that, in 2020-21, the field of playoff teams wouldn't have expanded at all beyond the narrow group of teams that have played in previous CFP series.
The biggest problem with Dodd's article is that - - throughout - - he seems to be much more concerned about which type of CFP system would be most agreeable to the top-tier P5 programs than he is about coming up with the best possible improvement to the CFP system.
................................................................................................................
An 8-1-2 type of CFP system would have resulted in a broader and more inclusive field of teams:
Conference champions: Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, (#10) Iowa State, (#17) USC, and (#8) Cincinnati
At-large teams: Notre Dame, Texas A&M
Round 1 2021 playoff games, based on 8-1-2 CFP system:
#1 Alabama vs. #17 USC
#2 Clemson vs. #10 Iowa State
#3 OSU vs. #8 Cincinnati
#4 Notre Dame vs. #5 Texas A&M
Total number of CFP games: 7 (3 rounds)
Number of conferences represented: Six.
Number of teams selected by committee: Two (25%).
................................................................................................................
Note that, unlike Dodd's proposed 6-team CFP, which would have made it very possible for two SEC teams - - or two ACC - - teams to play in the national championship game, the 8-1-2 CFP system would have made such a scenario much less likely, since, for this to happen:
Both Clemson and Notre Dame would have had to win their first and second round games, and, if Alabama or TAMU had won their first round games, one or the other would have been eliminated in the semifinals.
Questions:
Would you have been interested in watching these four playoff games if they had been held?
#1 Alabama vs. #17 USC
#2 Clemson vs. #10 Iowa State
#3 OSU vs. #8 Cincinnati
#4 Notre Dame vs. #5 Texas A&M
I believe Oklahoma won the Big12 this year...not Iowa State
RE: With CFP expansion now considered likely, which kind of playoff would you choose? - CitrusUCF - 01-31-2021 03:31 PM
Ideal: 10 team playoff. 10 conference champs. This would restore CFB to having the most meaningful regular season in all of sports. Win your conference or go home. The entire season becomes a playoff essentially.
More than acceptable: True NCAA playoff. Ten conference champs with auto-bids, 6 at-larges. Don't care in the least if the MAC champ gets smoked by Bama/Clemson every year. They deserve a shot.
RE: With CFP expansion now considered likely, which kind of playoff would you choose? - Attackcoog - 01-31-2021 03:32 PM
(01-31-2021 08:49 AM)Chappy Wrote: I think 5-1-2 is the most logical and 10-6 (all conference champs plus 6 at-large) is the most fair, so neither of those are likely to happen. CFP is reluctant to change, so it will probably grow to 6 teams next.
Agree. The 5-1-2 is the only way to go.
RE: With CFP expansion now considered likely, which kind of playoff would you choose? - WhoseHouse? - 01-31-2021 03:37 PM
P5 champ auto bid and three at larges, but with the stipulation that we go back to the BCS rankings. If a G5 team isn't good enough to sneak into that then we probably don't need to see them in a likely 1st round game against Bama. It would likely be a blood letting.
RE: With CFP expansion now considered likely, which kind of playoff would you choose? - CitrusUCF - 01-31-2021 03:39 PM
(01-31-2021 03:37 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote: P5 champ auto bid and three at larges, but with the stipulation that we go back to the BCS rankings. If a G5 team isn't good enough to sneak into that then we probably don't need to see them in a likely 1st round game against Bama. It would likely be a blood letting.
BCS formula approach won't work anymore because the poll voters have been conditioned into all the strength of schedule, quality loss bull****. Look at how UCF was ranked in the polls in 2017/2018, when we would have been Top 5 in the AP in years past. Same **** for Cincy this year. Before all this P5 ****, that 2018 UCF team would have been Top 3 after what we did in 2017.
BCS formula would only work now if it is all computer polls. No human subjectivity polls.
Also, who cares if the 1st round includes some "bloodletting"? That's what most 16-1/15-2 games are in the NCAA basketball tourney too, but no one says we should just cancel those.
RE: With CFP expansion now considered likely, which kind of playoff would you choose? - GoOwls111 - 01-31-2021 03:46 PM
Eight teams 4 & 4
Using the NFL model AFC vs NFC)... CFP (4 P5 vs 4 G5), winner from each group plays in national championship, if folks can't accept this then use the FCS model and stop this BS narrative that everyone has a chance.
RE: With CFP expansion now considered likely, which kind of playoff would you choose? - WhoseHouse? - 01-31-2021 04:01 PM
(01-31-2021 03:39 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:(01-31-2021 03:37 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote: P5 champ auto bid and three at larges, but with the stipulation that we go back to the BCS rankings. If a G5 team isn't good enough to sneak into that then we probably don't need to see them in a likely 1st round game against Bama. It would likely be a blood letting.
BCS formula approach won't work anymore because the poll voters have been conditioned into all the strength of schedule, quality loss bull****. Look at how UCF was ranked in the polls in 2017/2018, when we would have been Top 5 in the AP in years past. Same **** for Cincy this year. Before all this P5 ****, that 2018 UCF team would have been Top 3 after what we did in 2017.
BCS formula would only work now if it is all computer polls. No human subjectivity polls.
Also, who cares if the 1st round includes some "bloodletting"? That's what most 16-1/15-2 games are in the NCAA basketball tourney too, but no one says we should just cancel those.
That's not true at all. Plenty of people want to do away with auto bids in basketball. I'm not one but there's a good crowd that does. Also football and basketball are different animals. Football games are more intense and time consuming. You're never going to see the CFP resemble anything close to what we have with March Madness.
RE: With CFP expansion now considered likely, which kind of playoff would you choose? - CliftonAve - 01-31-2021 04:10 PM
While I think one day the playoffs will expand, we are still several years away from seeing it. The autonomy group wants to keep the non-autonomous schools under thumb as much as possible.