I've toyed with this format for most of the last decade. It is an 8-team playoff, but functions like a 16-team playoff. The top 5 conferences (now known as the P5), automatically get 5 of the 8 spots for their champions. The other 3 spots are determined by 3 at-large games played on Championship Saturday. The top 3 teams from non-AQ conferences are invited alongside the top 3 at-larges. One non-AQ team will get to host a play-in (replacing their conference's championship game, if applicable). A team is in-eligible for an at-large spot if a higher ranked at-large team has already defeated them (Florida>Auburn, Memphis>Cincy)

Using the CFP Rankings
1 Ohio State vs. 8 Wisconsin (Indianapolis)
2 LSU vs. 4 Georgia (Atlanta)
3 Clemson vs. 23 Virginia (Charlotte)
5 Utah vs. 13 Oregon (Santa Clara)
6 Oklahoma vs. 7 Baylor (Arlington)
9 Florida vs. 21 App State (ETZ play-in)
10 Penn State vs. 12 Alabama (CTZ-play-in)
17 Memphis vs. 19 Boise St (Memphis)

It was originally titled "flex" because AQ conferences could choose whether or not they wanted to schedule a CCG or send their champion straight to the 8-team playoff. Nowadays CCGs are a given and this would perenially be a 16-team playoff.

The most similar alternative is the 5-1-2 format we talk about. The difference here is that the SEC Championship would be an elimination game and the winner between Penn State and Alabama would likely take the SECCG loser's spot in the 8-team playoff. I think TV execs may prefer this because the SECCG means more, as does the inventory of an additional game. Plus, the SEC still has a shot at sending 3 teams into the 8-team playoff.

uh no. there wont be any dumb as hell conditions. It would be 5 P5 champs. 1 G5 team. And the next 2 highest teams- regardless of conference.

Also you violated your dumb rule in putting Alabama in over Auburn. LMAO.

I like it. But, yeah, the 5-1-2 is the low-hanging fruit.

And, I don't see #21 Appalachian State making the field unless they are part of a Play-In for the 1 G5 spot.

So, it would be:

- CCG weekend

- Then, a single G5 Play-In for the 1 spot.

- Then quarterfinals, seeding the 5-1-2.

Nothing else is needed.

(12-05-2019 01:46 PM)stever20 Wrote:  uh no. there wont be any dumb as hell conditions. It would be 5 P5 champs. 1 G5 team. And the next 2 highest teams- regardless of conference.

Also you violated your dumb rule in putting Alabama in over Auburn. LMAO.

Straight 8 all day. Next best would be 5-3.

(12-05-2019 01:35 PM)Crayton Wrote:  A team is in-eligible for an at-large spot if a higher ranked at-large team has already defeated them (Florida>Auburn, Memphis>Cincy)

You had a similar rule in your other playoff idea thread. I don't understand why teams should be prevented from entering the playoffs for such a bizarre reason as this.

It’s a little problematic (and unfair) for some teams to be forced to play on their P5 CCG as the underdog while lower ranked P5s have play in games with weaker G5’s.

I’m a 5-1-2 proponent. In some years 5-3 would be more practical but I think there are some major legal obstacles to that model since it effectively divides FBS in half.

Conference championships suck. They are a wasted week of college football. We’re having rematches with nothing on the line.

We need to go to 16 by ending CCG games.

Autobids:
- Each P5 division champ (10)
- Top G5 division champ (1)
- At large (5)

Ohio State vs Virginia
LSU vs Memphis
Clemson vs Michigan
Georgia vs Oregon
Utah vs Alabama
Oklahoma vs Auburn
Baylor vs Penn St
Wisconsin vs Florida

(12-05-2019 09:44 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Conference championships suck. They are a wasted week of college football. We’re having rematches with nothing on the line.

We need to go to 16 by ending CCG games.

Autobids:
- Each P5 division champ (10)
- Top G5 division champ (1)
- At large (5)

Ohio State vs Virginia
LSU vs Memphis
Clemson vs Michigan
Georgia vs Oregon
Utah vs Alabama
Oklahoma vs Auburn
Baylor vs Penn St
Wisconsin vs Florida

I tend to agree with this. The CCGs tend to get in the way of what could be a really nice CFP model.

Personally, I like the regional model, with each region centered around one of the New Year's Bowl games as a quarterfinal...use the autobids and CFP rankings to seed four of each of the 1, 2, 3, and 4 seeds. Then, organize the regions with teams mostly from the conferences that have ties to the quarterfinal bowl game for which they are trying to qualify and geography.

I would go with home sites for the Round 1 games, but you could use the five CCG sites, with three of the sites hosting double-headers, depending on the geography of the 1 and 2 seeds.

ROSE BOWL REGION
(1)Ohio State v. (4)Oregon, in Indianapolis, IN
(2)Utah v. (3)Penn State, in Las Vegas, NV

Rose Bowl = (1)Ohio State v. (2)Utah

SUGAR BOWL REGION
(1)LSU v. (4)Memphis, Atlanta, GA
(2)Oklahoma v. (3)Auburn, in Arlington, TX

Sugar Bowl = (1)LSU v. (2)Oklahoma

ORANGE BOWL REGION
(1)Clemson v. (4)Virginia, in Charlotte, NC
(2)Wisconsin v. (3)Florida, in Indianapolis, IN

Orange Bowl = (1)Clemson v. (2)Wisconsin

COTTON BOWL REGION
(1)Georgia v. (4)Michigan, in Atlanta, GA
(2)Baylor v. (3)Alabama, in Arlington, TX

Cotton Bowl = (1)Georgia v. (2)Baylor

CFP FINAL FOUR
(1)Ohio State v. (1)Georgia, in Indianapolis, IN (site of '22 Championship)
(1)LSU v. (1)Clemson, in Miami, FL (site of '21 Championship)

CFP NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP
(1)Ohio State v. (1)LSU, in New Orleans, LA

I for one like CCG weekend. I think there are a few conferences that could have better CCG match ups if some type of divisionless set up were permitted so that the two teams with the best conference record were guaranteed to meet.

(12-06-2019 01:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I for one like CCG weekend. I think there are a few conferences that could have better CCG match ups if some type of divisionless set up were permitted so that the two teams with the best conference record were guaranteed to meet.

Which conferences would benefit from the division-less set up this year?

SEC - 8-0 LSU v. 7-1 Georgia (next best is 6-2)
B1G - 9-0 Ohio State v. 7-2 Wisconsin (ranked ahead of 7-2 PSU and Minn)
B12 - 8-1 Oklahoma v. 8-1 Baylor (next best is 5-4)
PAC - 8-1 Utah v. 8-1 Oregon (next best is 7-2)
ACC - 8-0 Clemson v. 6-2 Virginia (next best is 5-3)
AAC - 7-1 Memphis v. 7-1 Cincinnati (ranked ahead of 7-1 Navy)
Sun Belt - 7-1 Appalachian State v. 7-1 Louisiana (next best is 5-3)
CUSA - 7-1 FAU v. 6-2 UAB (beat 6-2 LA Tech)
MAC - 6-2 Miami v. 6-2 CMU (next best is 5-3)

The only non-top-2 matchup I see is in the MWC, where it would be 8-0 Boise State versus 7-1 Air Force, instead of 5-3 Hawaii.

(12-06-2019 01:52 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(12-06-2019 01:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I for one like CCG weekend. I think there are a few conferences that could have better CCG match ups if some type of divisionless set up were permitted so that the two teams with the best conference record were guaranteed to meet.

Which conferences would benefit from the division-less set up this year?

SEC - 8-0 LSU v. 7-1 Georgia (next best is 6-2)
B1G - 9-0 Ohio State v. 7-2 Wisconsin (ranked ahead of 7-2 PSU and Minn)
B12 - 8-1 Oklahoma v. 8-1 Baylor (next best is 5-4)
PAC - 8-1 Utah v. 8-1 Oregon (next best is 7-2)
ACC - 8-0 Clemson v. 6-2 Virginia (next best is 5-3)
AAC - 7-1 Memphis v. 7-1 Cincinnati (ranked ahead of 7-1 Navy)
Sun Belt - 7-1 Appalachian State v. 7-1 Louisiana (next best is 5-3)
CUSA - 7-1 FAU v. 6-2 UAB (beat 6-2 LA Tech)
MAC - 6-2 Miami v. 6-2 CMU (next best is 5-3)

The only non-top-2 matchup I see is in the MWC, where it would be 8-0 Boise State versus 7-1 Air Force, instead of 5-3 Hawaii.

That’s what I see, too, as it is today. I think the main benefit we’d see is a more balanced schedule instead of one-sided divisional strength.

For example, the B1G East has 4 of the usual top 6 suspects in Ohio St, Michigan, Michigan St, and Penn St. I think we’d see 2 of those 4 in conference championship games more often than not. Wisconsin and Iowa may not have the same records as they do regularly playing Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, (a historically down) Nebraska, and Minnesota (which had an unusually good year.)

The SEC West is generally stronger as well with Georgia and Florida not having much competition in the East. Same with the ACC Atlantic lately with Florida St and Clemson. The PAC North has won 7 of 8.

There are cycles and shifts but divisionless may help balance schedules and get the 2 best teams, not just one best team and a team who had an easier road than the #2 team in the harder division.

The odd at-large rule replaced a 1-per conference limit. When conferences got to 14 teams and we slimmed to 5 major conferences, the 1-per conference became outdated. I suppose a 2-per conference or, really, no limit would be preferable. The weird one was originally used in a single WCG format where you would want to avoid a rematch if the lower ranked team already lost; in a committee environment this may no longer be a concern.

Not all CCGs are created equal. I viewed Oregon and Wisconsin as similarly strengthed, but Wisconsin had to play Ohio State while Oregon got to play Utah (insert your preferred comparison). The CCGs won’t be going away because conferences get to keep ALL the money they generate.

So the question is how to do a 5-1-2 while keeping things fair. It would not be “fair” if Alabama got to sit at 11-1 while LSU or Auburn had to play and potentially lose a 13th game. Perhaps only 1 P5 play-in game (Florida vs Penn State this year) and reserve the final at large spot for a CCG loser. I suppose you could reintroduce that weird tiebreaker to ensure Penn State and not Auburn plays Florida for that at-large spot.

The way the committee ranks, a 5-3 format would have yielded 3 CCG losers, making those games largely meaningless from a playoff perspective. That is not really what fans or even conferences (the owners of those “meaningless” games) want. Adding 1 or more play-in games makes them more important.

No G5 schools please