QV has a great point about a G5 auto-bid that I’ve often questioned. Why would the P5 go for that? Also, why are Notre Dame, BYU, UMass, UConn, and daddy Scrooge Liberty, etc. left out of that pool?

(12-14-2019 01:23 PM)esayem Wrote:  QV has a great point about a G5 auto-bid that I’ve often questioned. Why would the P5 go for that? Also, why are Notre Dame, BYU, UMass, UConn, and daddy Scrooge Liberty, etc. left out of that pool?

All for different, yet intentionally informal distinctions. Notre Dame is simply acknowledged by everyone as a P5 due to history and standing.
B.Y.U. is left out of all of them because of their lack of conformity due to their own religious beliefs and doctrines and essentially everyone else's bias against them for exercising that right. Army was left out of your list but they are similar to Notre Dame in that regard. For Liberty see B.Y.U. only without being Mormon but for being founded by a Fundamentalist, which again is simply because "our" very tolerant society is in reality only conveniently and selectively tolerant.

UConn is simply seen as a basketball school. They have no football history to speak of and nobody thinks football when UConn is mentioned. At the time of the split between the P5 and G5 UConn had the revenue to be P5, but not the full athletic profile for it.

UMass?

This is the kind of stuff that has caused me to check out on D1A football. Did conferences really go into this current model because they really thought their best teams were always going to get to go? That the snubs would be even and average out? Didn’t consider a SEC-like domination or really expected the depleted Big XII to suffer the most?

Scott sounds like an idiot. But, given who he represents, that’s par for the course.

Using the NY6 as an eight-team tournament always made the most sense. Some semblance of AQ, be it CCG outright or committee choice...simple solutions here.

You can’t ask the tiger to lose its stripes, so why we ever really expect D1A to figure out football without politics, bowl bias, theatre, and whatever b-s they call “tradition,” I don’t know. But, FBS isn’t a loved one battling the grips of addiction or some other demon. One doesn’t have to commit to it the same way one does in a marriage. If it’s ****, it’s ****. Let it be until otherwise.

(12-14-2019 01:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 01:23 PM)esayem Wrote:  QV has a great point about a G5 auto-bid that I’ve often questioned. Why would the P5 go for that? Also, why are Notre Dame, BYU, UMass, UConn, and daddy Scrooge Liberty, etc. left out of that pool?

All for different, yet intentionally informal distinctions. Notre Dame is simply acknowledged by everyone as a P5 due to history and standing.
B.Y.U. is left out of all of them because of their lack of conformity due to their own religious beliefs and doctrines and essentially everyone else's bias against them for exercising that right. Army was left out of your list but they are similar to Notre Dame in that regard. For Liberty see B.Y.U. only without being Mormon but for being founded by a Fundamentalist, which again is simply because "our" very tolerant society is in reality only conveniently and selectively tolerant.

UConn is simply seen as a basketball school. They have no football history to speak of and nobody thinks football when UConn is mentioned. At the time of the split between the P5 and G5 UConn had the revenue to be P5, but not the full athletic profile for it.

UMass?

I think I deleted “etc.” because I left out NMSU too.

Anyway, I’m excited to watch this Army-Navy game. Looks a lot colder than 50.

(12-14-2019 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  You think P5 powers will stand for little brothers in G5 going to the playoffs more often than them, because they have a dedicated lane that shields then from the toughest competition?

I don't, but we shall see.

All playoff bids are not created equal, however. The G5 playoff spot would just be the new "Access Bowl." We have that situation now--UCF has been to 3 major bowls in the last 10 years. Tennessee and South Carolina haven't been to any. Are we hearing chatter to get rid of the Access Bowl? Not really.

If Memphis goes to the playoffs at 10-3 while Tennessee goes to the Gator Bowl at 9-3, that just means that Tennessee might hire Memphis' coach.

(12-13-2019 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  PAC commissioner Larry Scott says missing the playoffs hurts the PAC brand. Also says he would only support 8-team playoff if it had auto-bids for the P5.

Well isn't that special? He would favor a playoff that would guarantee one of his teams gets in, LOL.

Bottom line is, we've seen this before: In 2016 when the Big 12 missed out, they rang the alarm bells. Last year, after the B1G missed out again, Delany of the B1G complained. Now the PAC is talking.

To the credit of the Big 12, they didn't whine about 8 teams, they talked about what they could do to be more competitive in making the 4-team playoff, and they did it. And to Scott's credit, he's not really whining about the 4 team CFP, he does say the PAC needs to get better, only Delany really did that.

But the moral to me is: There IS no general groundswell to move to 8 teams. It's just that whatever conference is left out of that year's four-team playoff grumbles.

https://sports.yahoo.com/commish-pac-12-...49307.html

Scott should spend more time cleaning up the Pac-12 Network and cutting expenses. Fixing the many problems he inherited or created. Basically, doing his job. Oregon blew it. They lost to Arizona State. They could have overcome that if they had not choked against Auburn in the opening game. A conference champion has almost no chance of getting in with two losses.

The Pac-12 needs USC and UCLA to play better football. USC used to own Southern California football recruiting. UCLA would also got their share of talent. Now it is schools like Clemson, Alabama, Ohio State stealing the top talent. The Pac-12 needs their Clemson, their Ohio State, their Alabama. That would help a lot in keeping west coast players on the west coast.

I think that playoff expansion is a subject that will come up in 2024 when the current contract is about to expire. I think expansion, if it happens, will definitely involve autobids for the five P5 champions. There is no way a P5 Commissioner is going to vote for expansion without an autobid for their conference. The current selection process is a subjective process and while they do a good job with the selections, a selection of eight is not going to be entirely in the hands of the committee.

You cannot rearrange playoffs every time somebody thinks they should be in

(12-14-2019 06:33 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  You cannot rearrange playoffs every time somebody thinks they should be in

I think everyone knew it'd be up to 8 pretty quickly.

(12-14-2019 03:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  You think P5 powers will stand for little brothers in G5 going to the playoffs more often than them, because they have a dedicated lane that shields then from the toughest competition?

I don't, but we shall see.

All playoff bids are not created equal, however. The G5 playoff spot would just be the new "Access Bowl." We have that situation now--UCF has been to 3 major bowls in the last 10 years. Tennessee and South Carolina haven't been to any. Are we hearing chatter to get rid of the Access Bowl? Not really.

If Memphis goes to the playoffs at 10-3 while Tennessee goes to the Gator Bowl at 9-3, that just means that Tennessee might hire Memphis' coach.

If the path is so easy, I'm sure any p5 that wanted to "game " the system wouldn't be denied entry into any g5 conference of their liking.

(12-13-2019 03:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 01:40 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 01:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 12:28 PM)3BNole Wrote:  I agree completely with the 5-1-2 model.

5-1-2 gives Boise, Memphis, and UCF an easier path to the playoffs than FSU, USC, Ohio State, or Notre Dame.

You really think the P5 will agree to that?

In this scenario, a P5 school would only have to be better than 9-13 teams in their conference. A G5 schools would have to be better than 70 other programs.

So how is it easier for a G5 than a school in a P5? Here's another thought: if you think your conference is too tough you can always join another one if you think it is an easier path.

Do I really have to explain it? Quantity doesn't trump quality. E.g., if someone told me to become Heavyweight Champion of the World, I could take path (a) which involves beating 20 seven-year old children, one a day for 20 straight days, or (b) beating Deontay Wilder and then Tyson Fury. Using your logic, The latter must be the easier path, because it's beating out two people compared to 20.

To make it clearer: Much harder to beat out a handful of teams if in that handful are Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Wisconsin than to beat out dozens of teams with nobody tougher than Memphis or Cincinnati.

Maybe the P5 will get suckered in to that?

I tend to agree with you to a certain extent. While there may be 65 odd "G5" teams to beat out, in true reality, all you need to do is beat out 4 or 5 AAC teams and Boise, and maybe an App in an odd year. Not 65 teams. I just don't think an auto bid process will get approved that doesn't include an access point for non power teams.

this discussion could just as easily go in the football playoff discussion thread, but it is relevant to the PAC 12 and the mathematical study of 8 or 9 conference games was done on the PAC 12 that showed a meaningful benefit for all of the teams in the conference except the bottom couple for playing fewer conference games

lets take this year as an example

Oregon and Utah played in the CCG and it basically came down to Utah had to win it or the PAC 12 was almost certainly going to get left out (and they were left out)

now lets look at a POTENTIAL situation for the PAC 12 this year if they had played 8 conference games instead of 9

first we look at the schedule of Utah

Date Time Opponent Rank Site TV Result Attendance
August 29 8:15 p.m. at BYU* No. 14

LaVell Edwards StadiumProvo, UT (Holy War)

ESPN W 30–12 61,626
September 7 11:00 a.m. Northern Illinois* No. 13

Rice–Eccles StadiumSalt Lake City, UT

P12N W 35–17 45,919
September 14 2:15 p.m. Idaho State* No. 11

Rice–Eccles StadiumSalt Lake City, UT

P12N W 31–0 45,989
September 20 7:00 p.m. at USC No. 10

Los Angeles Memorial ColiseumLos Angeles, CA

FS1 L 23–30 55,719
September 28 8:00 p.m. Washington Statedagger No. 19

Rice–Eccles StadiumSalt Lake City, UT

FS1 W 38–13 46,115
October 12 6:00 p.m. at Oregon State No. 15

Reser StadiumCorvallis, OR

P12N W 52–7 31,730
October 19 4:00 p.m. No. 17 Arizona State No. 13

Rice–Eccles StadiumSalt Lake City, UT

P12N W 21–3 46,402
October 26 8:00 p.m. California No. 12

Rice–Eccles StadiumSalt Lake City, UT

FS1 W 35–0 46,626
November 2 2:00 p.m. at Washington No. 9

Husky StadiumSeattle, WA

FOX W 33–28 69,270
November 16 6:00 p.m. UCLA No. 7

Rice–Eccles StadiumSalt Lake City, UT

FOX W 49–3 47,307
November 23 8:00 p.m. at Arizona No. 7

Arizona StadiumTucson, AZ

FS1 W 35–7 55,675
November 30 5:30 p.m. Colorado No. 6

Rice–Eccles StadiumSalt Lake City, UT (Rumble in the Rockies)

ABC W 45–15 46,879
December 6 6:00 p.m. vs. No. 13 Oregon No. 5

Levi's StadiumSanta Clara, CA (Pac-12 Championship Game)

ABC L 15–37 38,679

Utah lost their first and only regular season game to USC

USC is in their division so playing fewer conference games would not have made a difference for Utah if Utah was still to lose the CCG to Oregon as they did

now lets look at Oregon

Date Time Opponent Rank Site TV Result Attendance
August 31, 2019 4:30 p.m. vs. No. 16 Auburn* No. 11

AT&T StadiumArlington, TX (Advocare Classic / College GameDay)

ABC L 21–27 60,662
September 7 4:30 p.m. Nevada* No. 16

Autzen StadiumEugene, OR

P12N W 77–6 50,920
September 14 7:45 p.m. No. 20 (FCS) Montana* No. 15

Autzen StadiumEugene, OR

P12N W 35–3 49,098
September 21 4:00 p.m. at Stanford No. 16

Stanford StadiumStanford, CA

ESPN W 21–6 39,249
October 5 5:00 p.m. California No. 13

Autzen StadiumEugene, OR

FOX W 17–7 54,766
October 11 7:00 p.m. Colorado No. 13

Autzen StadiumEugene, OR

FS1 W 45–3 50,529
October 19 12:30 p.m. at No. 25 Washington No. 12

Husky StadiumSeattle, WA (rivalry)

ABC W 35–31 70,867
October 26 7:30 p.m. Washington Statedagger No. 11

Autzen StadiumEugene, OR

ESPN W 37–35 59,361
November 2 5:00 p.m. at USC No. 7

Los Angeles Memorial ColiseumLos Angeles, CA

FOX W 56–24 63,011
November 16 7:30 p.m. Arizona No. 6

Autzen StadiumEugene, OR

ESPN W 34–6 54,219
November 23 4:30 p.m. at Arizona State No. 6

Sun Devil StadiumTempe, AZ

ABC L 28–31 51,875
November 30 1:00 p.m. Oregon State No. 14

Autzen StadiumEugene, OR (Civil War)

P12N W 24–10 56,243
December 6 5:00 p.m. vs. No. 5 Utah No. 13

Levi's StadiumSanta Clara, CA (Pac-12 Championship Game)

ABC W 37–15 38,679

Oregon lost to Auburn in the first game of the season in an OOC game

the second loss for Oregon was to ASU in a conference game, but that was a CROSS DIVISIONAL conference game

so there is the POTENTIAL that if the PAC 12 was only playing 8 conference games instead of 9 that Oregon could have avoided playing ASU at all and if they had played a "meh" OOC game earlier in the season and won it then Oregon would be coming into the CCG against Utah with one loss at the first of the year to Auburn and they would be ranked at least #6 (their ranking before the ASU loss) and then when Oregon beat Utah in the CCG it would be the #6 team with one loss in their first game of the season to Auburn (that had just beaten Alabama a couple of weeks back) beating the (probably #7) team in the country and ending the season 12-1 and there is a very good chance that Oregon might make the playoffs

now lets be clear a couple of things would have had to happen and that is Oregon would have to have beaten a "meh" team in an OOC game and they would have to have avoided ASU as the cross divisional conference game that gave them their late season second loss

but to be clear the mathematical study that was done on the PAC 12 used a situation where a conference game was replaced with a game that was equal to the WEAKEST OOC game on a teams schedule and the maths showed that it was a net benefit in strength of schedule especially for the top teams in the conference and for the conference as a whole

so using this season and the scenario I laid out that means that Oregon would have been potentially replacing ASU with a game equal to Montana in strength of schedule

and again the study did the same with EVERY team in the conference making a similar replacement of a conference game with a very weak OOC game and it was a meaningful benefit to all but the bottom two teams and meaningful for the conference as a whole

and again I understand there is every chance that the schedule would have played out where ASU was not the missed cross divisional conference game for Oregon

but you can look at prior seasons as well

in 2018 UW and WSU both finished 7-2 in the same division and of course mike screwed off the Apple Cup so UW had the tie breaker

but if the PAC 12 had played fewer conference games there is a chance that WSU would have avoided the cross divisional loss to USC that year by missing that game and mike loves the VERY VERY VERY soft OOC games (but sometimes loses those because he is a dolt), but still with an 8-1 conference record and only a loss to UW it would still have placed WSU in the PAC 12 CCG as a team that was 11-1 and probably ranked about #7 (because they would not have had the early season loss to USC) and because they were #7 when they lost to USC and they were #12 going into the Alamo bowl against Iowa State

so you would think they would have been ranked slightly higher with no losses prior to losing to UW and you would think they would be ranked slightly higher than they were for their bowl game after the loss to UW.....so they would be going into the CCG probably ranked #7

I don't remember the exact way the playoffs worked out, but still for the PAC 12 having WSU going into the CCG and lets say beating Utah (even though mike loves to screw the pooch in big games especially to lesser teams) and ranked probably #7 with one loss (even though very recent) would have been a better situation than 10-2 UW and 9-3 Utah

and again this requires that WSU misses the cross divisional USC game which might or might not happen

but the reality is year in and year out you have a much better chance of hitting on the above situations where you get better teams with higher rankings into the CCG which increases the chances of getting them in the playoffs if you play fewer conference games

and over the long haul when you get more teams with better records into your CCG and you get more teams into the playoffs that is a LONG TERM benefit to your conference

and it is much more beneficial than the (not really even true) "additional value" of having more conference games to place on your crappy conference network that no one watches and that brings you next to no revenue in the case of the PAC 12

not to mention that with P5 conferences having buy on games and the like you probably get actual additional games for your network by playing fewer conference games even if those games are (thought to be) "worth less" than a conference game

because the long term damage you do to your conference by sending top teams to the CCG with more losses and missing the playoffs more frequently is certainly not made up for by having a "more valuable" conference game on your conference network that no one carries, no one watches, and that brings in little income vs having a crappy game against a crappy OOC opponent

not to mention the fact that the study done on the PAC 12 showed it was beneficial to all the teams in the conference except for the bottom two and beneficial to the conference strength as a whole to play more OOC games even against very bad teams vs playing more conference games

so year in and year out damaging your strength of schedule for the false perceived benefit of the financial gain of an additional conference game is a myth and actually horrible for the conference as a while and for the value of the cinference

Top 6 conferences get an autobid as long as the (xyz metric) threshold is met plus 2 at larges. The fight will be over that metric though as it will be obviously geared towards g5 exclusion.

(12-14-2019 06:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 06:33 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  You cannot rearrange playoffs every time somebody thinks they should be in

I think everyone knew it'd be up to 8 pretty quickly.

Quickly is 12-15 years of waiting to see?

It should have always been eight, or guaranteed spots for the major conferences.

Crap, I’d want to know in what world this current model was good enough...

(12-14-2019 03:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  You think P5 powers will stand for little brothers in G5 going to the playoffs more often than them, because they have a dedicated lane that shields then from the toughest competition?

I don't, but we shall see.

All playoff bids are not created equal, however. The G5 playoff spot would just be the new "Access Bowl." We have that situation now--UCF has been to 3 major bowls in the last 10 years. Tennessee and South Carolina haven't been to any. Are we hearing chatter to get rid of the Access Bowl? Not really.

If Memphis goes to the playoffs at 10-3 while Tennessee goes to the Gator Bowl at 9-3, that just means that Tennessee might hire Memphis' coach.

"Access Bowl" and "playoffs" are IMO two entirely different things. In fact, under the CFP, they are - access bowls are clearly a cut below making the playoffs, and so don't carry the same cache. And, because it's not part of the playoffs, everyone recognizes the G5 access spot as kind of an inferior thing in the NY6 universe. While the G5 team that gets it pops champagne, among the P5 it is looked down upon.

But in an 8-team playoff with 5-1-2, you'd now be guaranteeing a spot at the top table, the national title determining table, to the Memphis's and UCF's and Boise's of the world. IMO, that's entirely different and would invoke invidious comparisons, just like making or not making the CFP does now. The G5 access spot would not be regarded as inferior, because factually it would not be inferior, it would be the exact same playoff spot that the B1G champ has, the SEC champ has, etc. It would have that full prestige.

IMO, it will be unlikely that the P5 will implement a system that allow G5 schools an easier path to that top table than they themselves have.

But hey, we shall see.

I would be fine with a 5-1-2 that requires a certain level of "earn it":

So each winner the P5 goes IF it has a minimum of, say, 11 wins.

The rep from the G5 (and Army, Liberty, UMass, UConn, NMex State and BYU should be allowed to qualify, too) should be required to meet at least three of the following four metrics to get the invite:

1. have a minimum of 12 wins

2. have wins over at least seven teams with at least 6-6 records (I-AA foes don't count)

3. have a win over a P5 member with at least six wins

4. be conference champ (in the case of Army, Liberty, UMass, UConn, NMex State and BYU, ... would need to be 12-0)

If no one team from the G5/indies meets the criteria, sorry, the G5/indies do not get an invite. Instead, three at-larges are chosen.

(12-15-2019 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 03:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  You think P5 powers will stand for little brothers in G5 going to the playoffs more often than them, because they have a dedicated lane that shields then from the toughest competition?

I don't, but we shall see.

All playoff bids are not created equal, however. The G5 playoff spot would just be the new "Access Bowl." We have that situation now--UCF has been to 3 major bowls in the last 10 years. Tennessee and South Carolina haven't been to any. Are we hearing chatter to get rid of the Access Bowl? Not really.

If Memphis goes to the playoffs at 10-3 while Tennessee goes to the Gator Bowl at 9-3, that just means that Tennessee might hire Memphis' coach.

"Access Bowl" and "playoffs" are IMO two entirely different things. In fact, under the CFP, they are - access bowls are clearly a cut below making the playoffs, and so don't carry the same cache. It doesn't harm Tennessee that Memphis is going to the Cotton Bowl when that bowl is just an exhibition game like the Gator Bowl is. And, because it's not part of the playoffs, everyone recognizes the G5 access spot as kind of an inferior thing in the NY6 universe. While the G5 team that gets it pops champagne, among the P5 it is looked down upon.

But in an 8-team playoff with 5-1-2, you'd now be guaranteeing a spot at the top table, the national title determining table, to the Memphis's and UCF's and Boise's of the world. IMO, that's entirely different and would invoke invidious comparisons, just like making or not making the CFP does now. The G5 access spot would not be regarded as inferior, because factually it would not be inferior, it would be the exact same playoff spot that the B1G champ has, the SEC champ has, etc. It would have that full prestige.

IMO, it will be unlikely that the P5 will implement a system that allow G5 schools an easier path to that top table than they themselves have.

But hey, we shall see.

But the G5 schools still have to compete against each other while the P5 schools just only have to compete in their conference.

(12-15-2019 10:29 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I would be fine with a 5-1-2 that requires a certain level of "earn it":

So each winner the P5 goes IF it has a minimum of, say, 11 wins.

The rep from the G5 (and Army, Liberty, UMass, UConn, NMex State and BYU should be allowed to qualify, too) should be required to meet at least three of the following four metrics to get the invite:

1. have a minimum of 12 wins

2. have wins over at least seven teams with at least 6-6 records (I-AA foes don't count)

3. have a win over a P5 member with at least six wins

4. be conference champ (in the case of Army, Liberty, UMass, UConn, NMex State and BYU, ... would need to be 12-0)

If no one team from the G5/indies meets the criteria, sorry, the G5/indies do not get an invite. Instead, three at-larges are chosen.

This is an improvement on other efforts to get a "quality" G5. Most of them rely on rankings that can be manipulated, which is unacceptable. We saw in the BCS whenever a non-BCS school threatened to come close, they tweaked the formula to make it more difficult (ie removing MOV).

I do think the requirement of a win over a 6-6 P5 is bogus. The rest of the items are mostly within the school's control. Medium level P5s don't like to schedule good G5 schools.

(12-15-2019 11:00 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 03:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  You think P5 powers will stand for little brothers in G5 going to the playoffs more often than them, because they have a dedicated lane that shields then from the toughest competition?

I don't, but we shall see.

All playoff bids are not created equal, however. The G5 playoff spot would just be the new "Access Bowl." We have that situation now--UCF has been to 3 major bowls in the last 10 years. Tennessee and South Carolina haven't been to any. Are we hearing chatter to get rid of the Access Bowl? Not really.

If Memphis goes to the playoffs at 10-3 while Tennessee goes to the Gator Bowl at 9-3, that just means that Tennessee might hire Memphis' coach.

"Access Bowl" and "playoffs" are IMO two entirely different things. In fact, under the CFP, they are - access bowls are clearly a cut below making the playoffs, and so don't carry the same cache. It doesn't harm Tennessee that Memphis is going to the Cotton Bowl when that bowl is just an exhibition game like the Gator Bowl is. And, because it's not part of the playoffs, everyone recognizes the G5 access spot as kind of an inferior thing in the NY6 universe. While the G5 team that gets it pops champagne, among the P5 it is looked down upon.

But in an 8-team playoff with 5-1-2, you'd now be guaranteeing a spot at the top table, the national title determining table, to the Memphis's and UCF's and Boise's of the world. IMO, that's entirely different and would invoke invidious comparisons, just like making or not making the CFP does now. The G5 access spot would not be regarded as inferior, because factually it would not be inferior, it would be the exact same playoff spot that the B1G champ has, the SEC champ has, etc. It would have that full prestige.

IMO, it will be unlikely that the P5 will implement a system that allow G5 schools an easier path to that top table than they themselves have.

But hey, we shall see.

But the G5 schools still have to compete against each other while the P5 schools just only have to compete in their conference.

I addressed that earlier. Far tougher to win a 14-team conference that includes some really good teams than to be voted the best of 65 schools where none is better than Memphis or App State.

(12-15-2019 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 03:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  You think P5 powers will stand for little brothers in G5 going to the playoffs more often than them, because they have a dedicated lane that shields then from the toughest competition?

I don't, but we shall see.

All playoff bids are not created equal, however. The G5 playoff spot would just be the new "Access Bowl." We have that situation now--UCF has been to 3 major bowls in the last 10 years. Tennessee and South Carolina haven't been to any. Are we hearing chatter to get rid of the Access Bowl? Not really.

If Memphis goes to the playoffs at 10-3 while Tennessee goes to the Gator Bowl at 9-3, that just means that Tennessee might hire Memphis' coach.

"Access Bowl" and "playoffs" are IMO two entirely different things. In fact, under the CFP, they are - access bowls are clearly a cut below making the playoffs, and so don't carry the same cache. And, because it's not part of the playoffs, everyone recognizes the G5 access spot as kind of an inferior thing in the NY6 universe. While the G5 team that gets it pops champagne, among the P5 it is looked down upon.

But in an 8-team playoff with 5-1-2, you'd now be guaranteeing a spot at the top table, the national title determining table, to the Memphis's and UCF's and Boise's of the world. IMO, that's entirely different and would invoke invidious comparisons, just like making or not making the CFP does now. The G5 access spot would not be regarded as inferior, because factually it would not be inferior, it would be the exact same playoff spot that the B1G champ has, the SEC champ has, etc. It would have that full prestige.

IMO, it will be unlikely that the P5 will implement a system that allow G5 schools an easier path to that top table than they themselves have.

But hey, we shall see.

The G5 spot WOULD be inferior, because it would almost always be the No 8 spot, where you get fed to the No 1 team in the quarterfinals. It's not the same spot the P5 champ gets, unless it's the one-year-in-ten where a fluky P5 champ is lower-ranked than the G5 champ.

(12-15-2019 03:47 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 03:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  You think P5 powers will stand for little brothers in G5 going to the playoffs more often than them, because they have a dedicated lane that shields then from the toughest competition?

I don't, but we shall see.

All playoff bids are not created equal, however. The G5 playoff spot would just be the new "Access Bowl." We have that situation now--UCF has been to 3 major bowls in the last 10 years. Tennessee and South Carolina haven't been to any. Are we hearing chatter to get rid of the Access Bowl? Not really.

If Memphis goes to the playoffs at 10-3 while Tennessee goes to the Gator Bowl at 9-3, that just means that Tennessee might hire Memphis' coach.

"Access Bowl" and "playoffs" are IMO two entirely different things. In fact, under the CFP, they are - access bowls are clearly a cut below making the playoffs, and so don't carry the same cache. And, because it's not part of the playoffs, everyone recognizes the G5 access spot as kind of an inferior thing in the NY6 universe. While the G5 team that gets it pops champagne, among the P5 it is looked down upon.

But in an 8-team playoff with 5-1-2, you'd now be guaranteeing a spot at the top table, the national title determining table, to the Memphis's and UCF's and Boise's of the world. IMO, that's entirely different and would invoke invidious comparisons, just like making or not making the CFP does now. The G5 access spot would not be regarded as inferior, because factually it would not be inferior, it would be the exact same playoff spot that the B1G champ has, the SEC champ has, etc. It would have that full prestige.

IMO, it will be unlikely that the P5 will implement a system that allow G5 schools an easier path to that top table than they themselves have.

But hey, we shall see.

The G5 spot WOULD be inferior, because it would almost always be the No 8 spot, where you get fed to the No 1 team in the quarterfinals. It's not the same spot the P5 champ gets, unless it's the one-year-in-ten where a fluky P5 champ is lower-ranked than the G5 champ.

Bottom line is you are in the playoffs, seeding will be of almost no concern just as it is of almost no concern in the CFP.

I do not think the P5 will endorse a system that gives G5 teams the easiest path to what will be the all important playoffs.