+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large (/thread-923470.html)
CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large - stever20 - 06-10-2021 12:35 PM
RE: CFP Recommendation - Wedge - 06-10-2021 12:56 PM
Something for everyone, that appears to be the idea.
"6 highest-ranked conference champs" -- means at least three things.
(1) Open to any FBS conference champs, not just P5.
(2) Anyone who is paranoid about the possibility of CCG upsets will know that the never-gonna-happen-but-let's-pretend-it-will scenario of an 8-4 team winning a division and upsetting a 12-0 team in a CCG doesn't automatically put the 8-4 team in the playoff.
(3) Leaves the door open for the committee to choose a big name team (coughcough-Ohio State-coughcough) that didn't win its CCG for the playoff over a team from the same conference that doesn't have the same brand power.
"6 at large teams" -- means the SEC will approve because they think they'll get 4 of those 6.
Now all they have to do is take the bowl leeches' tentacles out of the playoff and they'll be good to go.
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large - IWokeUpLikeThis - 06-10-2021 12:59 PM
Interestingly, they went with 6+6 instead of the 100% guaranteed certainty of 5+1+6 that Frank always talked about.
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large - Wedge - 06-10-2021 01:04 PM
More details to be released later today, per The Athletic's report.
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large - dbackjon - 06-10-2021 01:04 PM
(06-10-2021 12:59 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: Interestingly, they went with 6+6 instead of the 100% guaranteed certainty of 5+1+6 that Frank always talked about.
So what years (and let's throw out 2020) would a P6 Champ not be one of the top 6?
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large - Kruciff - 06-10-2021 01:05 PM
(06-10-2021 01:04 PM)dbackjon Wrote:(06-10-2021 12:59 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: Interestingly, they went with 6+6 instead of the 100% guaranteed certainty of 5+1+6 that Frank always talked about.
So what years (and let's throw out 2020) would a P6 Champ not be one of the top 6?
Last year. Cincinnati and Coastal Carolina both ranked higher than Oregon.
EDIT: Just saw your exception.
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large - 72Tiger - 06-10-2021 01:08 PM
This will be the P5 conference champs plus the highest rated G5 champ plus 6 at large teams from the P5 most years. Once in a blue moon, a second G5 team may make it.
If you went to 16, you could include all 10 conference champions and still have 6 at larges. No byes that way. Seems simpler and all inclusive.
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large - Erictelevision - 06-10-2021 01:11 PM
Realistic way:
5 P5 champs
Best G5 champ
6 at-large (I'd prefer that making CCG be prerequisite, but that ain't happening)
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large - Fighting Muskie - 06-10-2021 01:11 PM
I can live with 6-6 but I would have preferred 6-4.
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large - whittx - 06-10-2021 01:16 PM
(06-10-2021 01:05 PM)Kruciff Wrote:(06-10-2021 01:04 PM)dbackjon Wrote:(06-10-2021 12:59 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: Interestingly, they went with 6+6 instead of the 100% guaranteed certainty of 5+1+6 that Frank always talked about.
So what years (and let's throw out 2020) would a P6 Champ not be one of the top 6?
Last year. Cincinnati and Coastal Carolina both ranked higher than Oregon.
EDIT: Just saw your exception.
Heck, St Jose State ranked above Oregon.
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large - Attackcoog - 06-10-2021 01:17 PM
(06-10-2021 12:59 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: Interestingly, they went with 6+6 instead of the 100% guaranteed certainty of 5+1+6 that Frank always talked about.
That surprises me---but that language is also the only way to avoid anti-trust issues. If I really wanted a guarantee for the P5 champs----I might have gone with the top 7 champs. I cant imagine any P5 champ finishing the season 8th out of 10 champs.
The thing I HATE HATE HATE about this plan is we are right back to placing it all in the hands of the Committee. If this is the plan---fine. BUT---the Committee structure MUST be overahauled. It must be changed to a 10 member group with each FBS conference appointing one member each. If they are not going to correct the ridiculous imbalance in the committee membership, then just get rid of the committee and go back to the old BCS computers/human poll system. That system was far more legitimate that the strictly brand driven Committee currently in place.
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large - Crayton - 06-10-2021 01:18 PM
Wow. I suppose I preferred 6+6 over 5+1+6, but didn't think it'd happen. It's a better format competitively and... legally? Later today we may see their plan on where to play the extra two rounds. Gotta think 1 is in early-bowl-season, the other I am guessing will be Army-Navy weekend at neutral sites, but we've batted that question around a bit recently.
EDIT: Looks like they are giving the BYEs to the Top 4 Champs. *back pat*
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large - Wedge - 06-10-2021 01:19 PM
Another detail -- this one is more important for what it doesn't say.
Saying that first-round games will be played on campus implies that the remaining games will not be played on campus.
Quote:Nicole Auerbach
@NicoleAuerbach
The recommendation will say that the first-round games would be played on campus. Obviously, the 12-team format means the top four seeds get first-round byes.
11:10 AM · Jun 10, 2021 · Twitter Web App
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large - stever20 - 06-10-2021 01:20 PM
(06-10-2021 01:19 PM)Wedge Wrote: Another detail
Quote:Nicole Auerbach
@NicoleAuerbach
The recommendation will say that the first-round games would be played on campus. Obviously, the 12-team format means the top four seeds get first-round byes.
11:10 AM · Jun 10, 2021 · Twitter Web App
thought I saw top 4 conference champs get the byes.
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large - GoBuckeyes1047 - 06-10-2021 01:21 PM
(06-10-2021 01:04 PM)dbackjon Wrote:(06-10-2021 12:59 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: Interestingly, they went with 6+6 instead of the 100% guaranteed certainty of 5+1+6 that Frank always talked about.
So what years (and let's throw out 2020) would a P6 Champ not be one of the top 6?
Excluding 2020, every P5 Champ made this hypothetical playoff, bigger thing I noticed 2016 Ohio State, 2017 Alabama (NC), and 2018 & 2020 Notre Dame are a top 4 team in the eyes of the CFP committee hosting the 1st round.
2016 #3 Ohio State would host #15 Western Michigan
2017 #4 Alabama would host #12 UCF
2018 #3 Notre Dame would host #12 Penn St.
2020 #4 Notre Dame would host #12 Coastal Carolina
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large - Wedge - 06-10-2021 01:22 PM
(06-10-2021 01:20 PM)stever20 Wrote: thought I saw top 4 conference champs get the byes.
ESPN story has that detail.
Quote:Under the proposal for a 12-team format, the four highest-ranked conference champions would be seeded 1-4 and receive a first-round bye. Teams 5-12 would play each other in the first round on the home field of the higher-ranked team. The quarterfinals and semifinals would be played in bowl games, and the national championship game would remain at a neutral site.
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large - JamesTKirk - 06-10-2021 01:23 PM
(06-10-2021 01:08 PM)72Tiger Wrote: This will be the P5 conference champs plus the highest rated G5 champ plus 6 at large teams from the P5 most years. Once in a blue moon, a second G5 team may make it.
If you went to 16, you could include all 10 conference champions and still have 6 at larges. No byes that way. Seems simpler and all inclusive.
I assume that "the highest rated G5 champ" would be:
The champion of the highest-rated G5 conference, rather than:
The highest-rated G5 team that won a conference championship.
.
Does anyone know which of these it would be?
.
If it would be the former of the two, then UCF apparently would have been an at-large team in 2018, because the MWC was the highest-rated conference in 2018, at least according to the Massey Composite.
.
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large - stever20 - 06-10-2021 01:25 PM
(06-10-2021 01:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:(06-10-2021 01:20 PM)stever20 Wrote: thought I saw top 4 conference champs get the byes.
ESPN story has that detail.
Quote:Under the proposal for a 12-team format, the four highest-ranked conference champions would be seeded 1-4 and receive a first-round bye. Teams 5-12 would play each other in the first round on the home field of the higher-ranked team. The quarterfinals and semifinals would be played in bowl games, and the national championship game would remain at a neutral site.
this means Notre Dame could never get a bye.
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large - Captain Bearcat - 06-10-2021 01:25 PM
This is a dream scenario for Notre Dame. And BYU. 6 at-large bids for them to take!
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large - stever20 - 06-10-2021 01:26 PM
(06-10-2021 01:23 PM)JamesTKirk Wrote:(06-10-2021 01:08 PM)72Tiger Wrote: This will be the P5 conference champs plus the highest rated G5 champ plus 6 at large teams from the P5 most years. Once in a blue moon, a second G5 team may make it.
If you went to 16, you could include all 10 conference champions and still have 6 at larges. No byes that way. Seems simpler and all inclusive.
I assume that "the highest rated G5 champ" would be:
The champion of the highest-rated G5 conference, rather than:
The highest-rated G5 team that won a conference championship.
.
Does anyone know which of these it would be?
.
If it would be the former of the two, then UCF apparently would have been an at-large team in 2018, because the MWC was the highest-rated conference in 2018, at least according to the Massey Composite.
.
Teams are all that matters not the specific conference. UCF would absolutely have been the team in 2018.