(06-10-2021 08:12 AM)goofus Wrote: I wonder if rather than doing away with the ccg to eliminate the extra game, maybe the conferences can try a champions week format like the Big Ten tried last year.
In other words, leave the scheduling for the last week of the regular season flexible and try to match the best 2 teams in a CGG, and match the 3rd best team against the 4th best team, etc. Or if a conference still has divisions, match the 2 division winners against each other in the ccg. And the 2nd best teams in each division against each other, etc. You can set it up so that each division will be the home team in opposite years for non-ccg games.
You go with this format, you don't even need to change the rules for the CCG, because those rules are only necessary if you want the CCG to be the 13th game.
That's what I think should happen. You could limit it to teams at or above .500 if logistics are an issue. If I'm the Big Ten, PAC-12, and maybe Big 12, I'm cutting back to 8 scheduled conference games (preferably divisionless) to get a 4th non-comference game (2 P5 games min.) and using Champions Week as the 9th conference game. This drops 1 non-CCG conference game (if all teams participate) while adding 10-14 non-conference games all likely against P5 opponents. The ACC and SEC gain 6 additional conference games while keeping their 4 non-conference games and in-state non-conference rivalries. Together, you get uniform scheduling and everyone gets a 13th game to try to make the playoff, host a home game playoff, or receive a bye week & home quarterfinal game.
With this in addition to an expanded playoff, you can increase bowl eligibility to 7 wins to make a winning record a requirement to bowl again and give slightly more meaningful to make a bowl game. This on average (in theory looking back from 2014-2019) likely results in 72-74 bowl eligible teams each season, and if you placed the 8 eliminated in the NY6 with the 4 semifinalists, you get 46 bowl/playoff games (42 bowls if they don't), which would be my cap. ESPN would be thrilled too because they would get more inventory and be able to replace some lower tier bowls with playoff games.
Lastly, create a 2nd tier of bowl games (9 bowls total) for the CFP Top 25 teams not in the playoff, G5 champs not ranked or in the CFP, and any spots available for the team(s) with the most wins not yet selected and/or highest ranked available. There would be no bowl tie-ins and let the committee create these bowl matchups with the selected teams in those 9 bowls. This gives us better quality bowls and G5 champs a chance at the big boys (I would establish a rule G5 champs wouldn't play each other). Below is how this format would've looked like in 2019
12 Team CFP:
1. LSU (13-0) vs. 8. Wisconsin (10-3) / 9. Florida (10-2)
4. Oklahoma (12-1) vs. 5. Georgia (11-2) / 17. Memphis (12-1)
2. Ohio St. (13-0) vs. 7. Baylor (11-2) / 10. Penn St. (10-2)
3. Clemson (13-0) vs. 6. Oregon (11-2) / 11. Utah (11-2)
(I would consider switching either Oregon and Baylor or Penn St. and Utah to avoid the Oregon-Utah rematch)
2nd Tier Bowl Teams:
12. Auburn (9–3)
13. Alabama (10–2)
14. Michigan (9–3)
15. Notre Dame (10–2)
16. Iowa (9–3)
18. Minnesota (10–2)
19. Boise St. (12–1) (MWC Champs)
20. Appalachian St. (12–1) (Sun Belt Champs)
21. Cincinnati (10–3)
22. USC Trojans (8–4)
23. Navy (10–2)
24. Virginia (9–4)
25. Oklahoma St. (8–4)
Florida Atlantic (10-3) (C-USA Champ)
Miami (OH) (8-5) (MAC Champ)
SMU (10-2, lost to Navy and Memphis)
Air Force (10-2, lost to Boise St. and Navy)
UCF (9-3, lost @ Pittsburgh, @ Cincy, and @ Tulsa all by 1-3 points)
I opted for UCF over Louisiana (10-3, lost to Miss State and App State 2x) but that is my opinion