(05-04-2021 08:41 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 11:37 AM)Goronic Wrote:  The only way to come across as 'fair' and keep it to reasonable number of teams/games at the end of the year is:

5 - P5 Champions
1 - Highest Ranked G5 (that is also a conference champion would be what I would add)
2 - At Large teams

8 team playoff and would guarantee that every FBS team has at least a chance at getting into the national championship game. And we already know if they went this way the top G5 would play the #1 ranked team as the 8th seed.

I think this is the best we can hope for in the G5 at least for now. Of course this will set up the inevitable ESPN pundit line of why should this G5 get in over a Top 10 P5 no matter how good the G5 is they will probably always be pitted against the #1 or #2 seed.

And every G5 losing to Ohio State, Clemson, or Alabama will be "proof" that the G5 doesn't belong.

They try using this line on Brian Kelly, asking him how Notre Dame feels after being continuously blown out in post season play. Then you see Alabama destroy Ohio State and no one asks Ryan Day how it feels getting blown out two years in a row.

It's about a narrative. Sports writers, like political pundits, don't get paid to be fair. They get paid to maximize views and ad revenue for whomever is publishing their work.

(05-04-2021 09:01 AM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(05-04-2021 08:41 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 11:37 AM)Goronic Wrote:  The only way to come across as 'fair' and keep it to reasonable number of teams/games at the end of the year is:

5 - P5 Champions
1 - Highest Ranked G5 (that is also a conference champion would be what I would add)
2 - At Large teams

8 team playoff and would guarantee that every FBS team has at least a chance at getting into the national championship game. And we already know if they went this way the top G5 would play the #1 ranked team as the 8th seed.

I think this is the best we can hope for in the G5 at least for now. Of course this will set up the inevitable ESPN pundit line of why should this G5 get in over a Top 10 P5 no matter how good the G5 is they will probably always be pitted against the #1 or #2 seed.

And every G5 losing to Ohio State, Clemson, or Alabama will be "proof" that the G5 doesn't belong.

They try using this line on Brian Kelly, asking him how Notre Dame feels after being continuously blown out in post season play. Then you see Alabama destroy Ohio State and no one asks Ryan Day how it feels getting blown out two years in a row.

It's about a narrative. Sports writers, like political pundits, don't get paid to be fair. They get paid to maximize views and ad revenue for whomever is publishing their work.

AL is not real, as in we will never see a run from a coach like this again. There is nothing special about AL other than budget. None of those old fake "national championships" helped one bit when Shula was coach. They can easily be the next Texas or USC, former powers nobody saw falling off. When Saban retires they will not be near as dominant even if they get Dabo. Ohio State is the only one I see being almost coach proof as nobody is really challenging them in their conference.

Every spot added does significantly eats away at the power vacuum that having only four created though. Yes, the G5 if seeded last or next to last will be heavy underdogs but I have seen Clemson and Ohio State be vulnerable against teams they should not be. Outside of going against an AL I think the top G5 has a legit chance. I just watched Cincy out play thUGA for 99% of a game. There always seems to be a G5 that has that convergence of great coaching and their talent comes together at the right time. Does it last? No, because coaches get poached and it is a bit of luck finding enough diamonds in the rough that outplay their rankings significantly. I like having a chance versus no chance by being left out the more they add the better our chances.

An 8 team playoff with a guaranteed G5 inclusion is the best realistic option (my opinion). It's true that the G5 team would probably be a sacrificial lamb most years but at least there would be a path, which currently there is not. ANY 7/8 seed would be a huge underdog against a 1/2. The wide margins in the current 4 team playoff semi's would seem to support that. They wouldn't be impossible long shots though and that's what is key. Realistically, a 7/8 seed is about where the G5 candidate would belong, with rare exceptions.

If they include conference champs, you have to get rid of divisions within the conference and let the best 2 play in the CCG for that bid.

(05-04-2021 09:40 PM)Usajags Wrote:  If they include conference champs, you have to get rid of divisions within the conference and let the best 2 play in the CCG for that bid.

Agreed. 100%.

Would also like to see any 2nd place (in own Conf) P5 team be auto awarded the 8 seed. Any 2nd place team should have to prove it, by beating #1. Will never happen, largely because most years we’d be talking a 1/8 SEC repeat. SEC would never allow it.

(05-05-2021 12:49 PM)MOTIAW Wrote:  Would also like to see any 2nd place (in own Conf) P5 team be auto awarded the 8 seed. Any 2nd place team should have to prove it, by beating #1. Will never happen, largely because most years we’d be talking a 1/8 SEC repeat. SEC would never allow it.

If it were P5 conference champ and best G5, that leaves 2 at large. They would be placed 7 and 8, not to play same conference 1 and 2. Meaning, if 1 is SEC team, but at large is one SEC, one ACC, make SEC 7 and ACC 8. Easy fix.

(05-05-2021 04:50 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 12:49 PM)MOTIAW Wrote:  Would also like to see any 2nd place (in own Conf) P5 team be auto awarded the 8 seed. Any 2nd place team should have to prove it, by beating #1. Will never happen, largely because most years we’d be talking a 1/8 SEC repeat. SEC would never allow it.

If it were P5 conference champ and best G5, that leaves 2 at large. They would be placed 7 and 8, not to play same conference 1 and 2. Meaning, if 1 is SEC team, but at large is one SEC, one ACC, make SEC 7 and ACC 8. Easy fix.

Personally I think it should be the 8 but then place them according to CFP ranking.

16 is the way to go. It’s the perfect solution, but I’d be happy with 8.

(05-10-2021 09:16 PM)eh9198 Wrote:  16 is the way to go. It’s the perfect solution, but I’d be happy with 8.

I’d be ok with 16, but in that scenario, the CCG’s would probably have to go away. Just to make room in the schedule and to keep the playoffs from going into late January.

Can t see it going from 4 to 16. I think the real discussion is going to 6 or 8. All of the G5 needs to be pushing hard for 8 as I think 6 would still shut the G5 out. I think at 8 a G5 would be included

After more thought about the playoffs, I have come to a new conclusions. I don’t think any conference champs should get an auto bid, unless all 10 conferences get an auto bid. If they only expand to 8, then it needs to be the best 8, with consideration given to the best of the G5. If there is not a deserving G5, they shouldn’t be included. However, if there is an undefeated, or 1 loss, G5 team, they should be considered above a multi loss P5. But also, there shouldn’t be any auto P5 conferences, just because you won the PAC12, with 3 losses, that shouldn't get you in.

Just my opinion after giving it more thought.

(05-13-2021 08:16 PM)Usajags Wrote:  After more thought about the playoffs, I have come to a new conclusions. I don’t think any conference champs should get an auto bid, unless all 10 conferences get an auto bid. If they only expand to 8, then it needs to be the best 8, with consideration given to the best of the G5. If there is not a deserving G5, they shouldn’t be included. However, if there is an undefeated, or 1 loss, G5 team, they should be considered above a multi loss P5. But also, there shouldn’t be any auto P5 conferences, just because you won the PAC12, with 3 losses, that shouldn't get you in.

Just my opinion after giving it more thought.

I get what you're saying conceptually. In a perfect world that makes sense, but it really doesn't account for the reality of our current structure. As much as folks on this board hate to acknowledge it, being a conference champ from any G5 isn't on par with being the conference champ from a P5. I don't think it is beneficial to create a bunch of games for teams who have no logical claim to deserving a shot at the championship. I realize that in any given year there are a couple of P5 champs who don't really deserve it, but the idea is to take some of the political component out. Also, the G5 needs a guaranteed representative. "Giving consideration" is where we are now and that equates to never being included.

Just my opinion, of course

The biggest question that needs to be solved for the CFP.....what is the path to the playoff? Other than being Bama or Clemson (who have taken up over half of the total available playoff spots since inception), I'm not sure that anyone knows.

(05-14-2021 08:49 AM)Yosef84 Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 08:16 PM)Usajags Wrote:  After more thought about the playoffs, I have come to a new conclusions. I don’t think any conference champs should get an auto bid, unless all 10 conferences get an auto bid. If they only expand to 8, then it needs to be the best 8, with consideration given to the best of the G5. If there is not a deserving G5, they shouldn’t be included. However, if there is an undefeated, or 1 loss, G5 team, they should be considered above a multi loss P5. But also, there shouldn’t be any auto P5 conferences, just because you won the PAC12, with 3 losses, that shouldn't get you in.

Just my opinion after giving it more thought.

I get what you're saying conceptually. In a perfect world that makes sense, but it really doesn't account for the reality of our current structure. As much as folks on this board hate to acknowledge it, being a conference champ from any G5 isn't on par with being the conference champ from a P5. I don't think it is beneficial to create a bunch of games for teams who have no logical claim to deserving a shot at the championship. I realize that in any given year there are a couple of P5 champs who don't really deserve it, but the idea is to take some of the political component out. Also, the G5 needs a guaranteed representative. "Giving consideration" is where we are now and that equates to never being included.

Just my opinion, of course

It does a couple things IMO. It gives more of a reward for and makes winning your conference more important. It also allows the G5 to get recognition and bigger and better recruits that may not ever look there way. If you've got a high 3* or 4* that can go to a G5 and have a chance to get to the CFP it may get some of them to choose to go to a G5 to be a star instead of going to a P5 to be a 2nd or 3rd stringer. It will add more parity across all conferences because all of the biggest recruits won't simply go to the same four schools that are the only ones that get a chance at the CFP.

It should go to 16 with 10 autobids and let everyone actually have a chance without any IFs involved.

But if we're stuck at 8 it should go to the top 6 conference champs, regardless of P5/G5. The 2 at-large can be the highest ranked non-champs.

For 2020, that gives you:
1) Alabama *
2) Clemson *
3) Ohio State *
4) Notre Dame
5) Texas A&M
6) Oklahoma *
7) Cincinnati *
8) Coastal *

You absolutely have to have some autobids to take it out of the committee's hands. If it's just raw top 8, then oops, guess Cincy is gonna have to get bumped down to 9 so UGA can get in, sorry no G5s again this year.