I've been thinking about 'hidden' objections to various playoff expansion plans. I came up with the opt-out thing the other day and that didn't go over well (LOL), but so here's another:

Seems to me that if a "top 6 champs" plan is adopted, without P5 autobids, then this creates an immediate incentive, heck arguably a necessity, for conferences that current have divisions to drop their divisions and move to the Big 12 "top two meet" format for their CCG. Because with divisions, you run the risk of a situation where a 7-5 division winner upsets a 10-2 ranked division winner in the CCG, and then suddenly your champ isn't in the top six anymore. Even if that now 10-3 team still gets in as an at-large, you've lost the conference champ spot. With P5 autobids you don't need to abandon divisions, because your champ gets in now matter how unranked they might be.

So I would expect that if such a plan passes, conferences like the PAC and ACC would immediately drop their division format. Heck, I would expect even the B1G and SEC to do so as well. There's just no reason to take the risk of a weak-division winner winning the CCG and knocking your champ out of the top six.

But what if, for whatever reason, a conference really likes its divisional set-up? Would it vote against a "top 6" format on that basis? Is the B1G so attached to Leaders and Legends or whatever its divisions are called?

Inquiring minds want to know ...

(01-14-2022 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I've been thinking about 'hidden' objections to various playoff expansion plans. I came up with the opt-out thing the other day and that didn't go over well (LOL), but so here's another:

Seems to me that if a "top 6 champs" plan is adopted, without P5 autobids, then this creates an immediate incentive, heck arguably a necessity, for conferences that current have divisions to drop their divisions and move to the Big 12 "top two meet" format for their CCG.

Without a rule change, you can only do a CCG if you have divisions, or a full-round-robin, which you can't really do with 12-14-16 teams. AAC got a waiver to do it with 11, but not a permanent waiver. (Kicking the can down the road until the AAC takes a 12th team, or until TPTB agree to let conferences just have CCGs however they want. Or until realignment shakes up the etch-a-sketch)

A threat? Nah. The desire for AQs is more for the sake of guaranteed stakes rather than keeping divisions. Had San Diego State beat Fresno this year, the Pac-12 and ACC would have been nervous about failing to make a 6+6 playoff, despite having their 2 highest ranked teams in their CCGs.

Side note, 7-5 Pitt would also be the #2 team in a divisionless ACC in 2018.

The only conference that I think "really likes" their divisional setup is the SEC, and they seem on-board with 6+6.

(01-14-2022 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I've been thinking about 'hidden' objections to various playoff expansion plans. I came up with the opt-out thing the other day and that didn't go over well (LOL), but so here's another:

Seems to me that if a "top 6 champs" plan is adopted, without P5 autobids, then this creates an immediate incentive, heck arguably a necessity, for conferences that current have divisions to drop their divisions and move to the Big 12 "top two meet" format for their CCG. Because with divisions, you run the risk of a situation where a 7-5 division winner upsets a 10-2 ranked division winner in the CCG, and then suddenly your champ isn't in the top six anymore. Even if that now 10-3 team still gets in as an at-large, you've lost the conference champ spot. With P5 autobids you don't need to abandon divisions, because your champ gets in now matter how unranked they might be.

So I would expect that if such a plan passes, conferences like the PAC and ACC would immediately drop their division format. Heck, I would expect even the B1G and SEC to do so as well. There's just no reason to take the risk of a weak-division winner winning the CCG and knocking your champ out of the top six.

But what if, for whatever reason, a conference really likes its divisional set-up? Would it vote against a "top 6" format on that basis? Is the B1G so attached to Leaders and Legends or whatever its divisions are called?

Inquiring minds want to know ...

LOL - the Big Ten went to logical East and West divisions several years ago. It's really the ACC that has the illogical divisions at this point.

That being said, I agree that the incentive for top 6 conference champs would be to have the top two teams meet a la the Big 12.

With Texas and Oklahoma entering the SEC, I believe that the league would actually welcome division-less flexibility at this point. The Big Ten's objection to removing the division requirement seemed to be more about keeping another reason for ND to never join the ACC more than anything logical within (as removing divisions would actually work quite well in the Big Ten in practicality).

(01-14-2022 12:42 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I've been thinking about 'hidden' objections to various playoff expansion plans. I came up with the opt-out thing the other day and that didn't go over well (LOL), but so here's another:

Seems to me that if a "top 6 champs" plan is adopted, without P5 autobids, then this creates an immediate incentive, heck arguably a necessity, for conferences that current have divisions to drop their divisions and move to the Big 12 "top two meet" format for their CCG. Because with divisions, you run the risk of a situation where a 7-5 division winner upsets a 10-2 ranked division winner in the CCG, and then suddenly your champ isn't in the top six anymore. Even if that now 10-3 team still gets in as an at-large, you've lost the conference champ spot. With P5 autobids you don't need to abandon divisions, because your champ gets in now matter how unranked they might be.

So I would expect that if such a plan passes, conferences like the PAC and ACC would immediately drop their division format. Heck, I would expect even the B1G and SEC to do so as well. There's just no reason to take the risk of a weak-division winner winning the CCG and knocking your champ out of the top six.

But what if, for whatever reason, a conference really likes its divisional set-up? Would it vote against a "top 6" format on that basis? Is the B1G so attached to Leaders and Legends or whatever its divisions are called?

Inquiring minds want to know ...

LOL - the Big Ten went to logical East and West divisions several years ago. It's really the ACC that has the illogical divisions at this point.

That being said, I agree that the incentive for top 6 conference champs would be to have the top two teams meet a la the Big 12.

With Texas and Oklahoma entering the SEC, I believe that the league would actually welcome division-less flexibility at this point. The Big Ten's objection to removing the division requirement seemed to be more about keeping another reason for ND to never join the ACC more than anything logical within (as removing divisions would actually work quite well in the Big Ten in practicality).

Depends on the conference.

I don’t think it impacts the SEC at all. Their two division winners are getting into a 12 team play-off regardless. The BIG most likely would be in the same boat as a win over the top ranked team almost certainly vault the other division winner into the standings.

The two conferences it impacts the most are the ACC and the PAC with the PAC being most impacted as the have a large number of average teams currently and are most ripe for an upset and being left out.

Division-less when you get to 12 and even more so with 14 or 16 means you frequently determine teams based on arcane tiebreaks instead of on the field.

(01-14-2022 12:34 PM)Crayton Wrote:  A threat? Nah. The desire for AQs is more for the sake of guaranteed stakes rather than keeping divisions. Had San Diego State beat Fresno this year, the Pac-12 and ACC would have been nervous about failing to make a 6+6 playoff, despite having their 2 highest ranked teams in their CCGs.

Side note, 7-5 Pitt would also be the #2 team in a divisionless ACC in 2018.

The only conference that I think "really likes" their divisional setup is the SEC, and they seem on-board with 6+6.

In 2018 Syracuse would have been the #2 team in a divisionless ACC with a 9-3 record (6-2 in conference). But who knows what any team's record might have been if they played a completely different schedule? Maybe some other team doesn't have to play any of the top teams and goes unbeaten in conference play.

But, as has been pointed out, NCAA rules would have to be changed to allow a 14 team conference to have a divisionless CCG.

(01-14-2022 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I've been thinking about 'hidden' objections to various playoff expansion plans. I came up with the opt-out thing the other day and that didn't go over well (LOL), but so here's another:

Seems to me that if a "top 6 champs" plan is adopted, without P5 autobids, then this creates an immediate incentive, heck arguably a necessity, for conferences that current have divisions to drop their divisions and move to the Big 12 "top two meet" format for their CCG. Because with divisions, you run the risk of a situation where a 7-5 division winner upsets a 10-2 ranked division winner in the CCG, and then suddenly your champ isn't in the top six anymore. Even if that now 10-3 team still gets in as an at-large, you've lost the conference champ spot. With P5 autobids you don't need to abandon divisions, because your champ gets in now matter how unranked they might be.

So I would expect that if such a plan passes, conferences like the PAC and ACC would immediately drop their division format. Heck, I would expect even the B1G and SEC to do so as well. There's just no reason to take the risk of a weak-division winner winning the CCG and knocking your champ out of the top six.

But what if, for whatever reason, a conference really likes its divisional set-up? Would it vote against a "top 6" format on that basis? Is the B1G so attached to Leaders and Legends or whatever its divisions are called?

Inquiring minds want to know ...

Yet another reason I suspect the 5+1+6 will end up being the compromise. While I agree with Aresco's stance---the truth is I have been a long time proponent of the 8-team 5+1+2 playoff configuration. That's effectively the exact same thing as the 5+1+6 system in terms of how the G5 is segregated from the P5. In the end, while it would be nice if there were absolutely no differences in how FBS leagues are treated within the structure of the CFP---its far more important for the G5 to gain real legitimate access to the playoff than it is to gain structural equality.

The problem with CFB is people still care too much about conference championships.

The AFC and NFC conference titles are more of a step on the way to a championship than an end goal. It should be the same in CFB.

The playoff should expand more by eliminating the CCG and using DIVISION champs as the auto qualifiers.

It should be the top 11 DIVISION champs plus 5 at large. That guarantees at least 1 G5 bid while giving the SEC plenty of room for at large bids. And if your P5 conference’s division champs finish behind 3 G5 champs, you’re SOL. Division titles should be the most important goal of regular season play.

Crown the conference champ in whatever arcane way you chose, but don’t let it interfere with a meaningful postseason.

(01-14-2022 12:57 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 12:34 PM)Crayton Wrote:  A threat? Nah. The desire for AQs is more for the sake of guaranteed stakes rather than keeping divisions. Had San Diego State beat Fresno this year, the Pac-12 and ACC would have been nervous about failing to make a 6+6 playoff, despite having their 2 highest ranked teams in their CCGs.

Side note, 7-5 Pitt would also be the #2 team in a divisionless ACC in 2018.

The only conference that I think "really likes" their divisional setup is the SEC, and they seem on-board with 6+6.

In 2018 Syracuse would have been the #2 team in a divisionless ACC with a 9-3 record (6-2 in conference). But who knows what any team's record might have been if they played a completely different schedule? Maybe some other team doesn't have to play any of the top teams and goes unbeaten in conference play.

But, as has been pointed out, NCAA rules would have to be changed to allow a 14 team conference to have a divisionless CCG.

6-2 Syracuse would have been #3, behind a 6-2 Pitt team who defeated the Orange in OT. Either way, the chance that ANY 6-2 team also goes 1-3 OOC is rare.

Going divisionless is part of the OP premise.

(01-14-2022 01:08 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The problem with CFB is people still care too much about conference championships.

The AFC and NFC conference titles are more of a step on the way to a championship than an end goal. It should be the same in CFB.

The playoff should expand more by eliminating the CCG and using DIVISION champs as the auto qualifiers.

It should be the top 11 DIVISION champs plus 5 at large. That guarantees at least 1 G5 bid while giving the SEC plenty of room for at large bids. And if your P5 conference’s division champs finish behind 3 G5 champs, you’re SOL. Division titles should be the most important goal of regular season play.

Crown the conference champ in whatever arcane way you chose, but don’t let it interfere with a meaningful postseason.

Not a bad thought exercise. I do think that 7-team divisions (with 6-game round-robins) are large enough for this type of reward. Would you make 6 the minimum division size to avoid conferences making small divisions and gathering excess bids?

As with my most-recent thread, conference ownership of these games is the current barrier to such a format. And there don't seem to be economic incentives to convince them to replace them with more equitably-shared revenue games.

(01-14-2022 01:08 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The problem with CFB is people still care too much about conference championships.

The AFC and NFC conference titles are more of a step on the way to a championship than an end goal. It should be the same in CFB.

The playoff should expand more by eliminating the CCG and using DIVISION champs as the auto qualifiers.

It should be the top 11 DIVISION champs plus 5 at large. That guarantees at least 1 G5 bid while giving the SEC plenty of room for at large bids. And if your P5 conference’s division champs finish behind 3 G5 champs, you’re SOL. Division titles should be the most important goal of regular season play.

Crown the conference champ in whatever arcane way you chose, but don’t let it interfere with a meaningful postseason.

I couldnt disagree more. College football operates at two levels. It is a regional sport first----its a national sport second. The SEC championship is very important. The national championship field should reflect the end result of an entire conference season---and that includes the conference championship game. If a divisional champ makes it into the 12 team playoff as a wildcard---awesome! I have no issue with that---but I do think that the best FBS conference champions should be represented in the playoff. The 6+6 and 5+1+6 systems both provide for a nice mix of auto-qualifiers and wildcards. Hopefully, we end up with one of those two systems.

(01-14-2022 01:08 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The problem with CFB is people still care too much about conference championships.

The AFC and NFC conference titles are more of a step on the way to a championship than an end goal. It should be the same in CFB.

The playoff should expand more by eliminating the CCG and using DIVISION champs as the auto qualifiers.

It should be the top 11 DIVISION champs plus 5 at large. That guarantees at least 1 G5 bid while giving the SEC plenty of room for at large bids. And if your P5 conference’s division champs finish behind 3 G5 champs, you’re SOL. Division titles should be the most important goal of regular season play.

Crown the conference champ in whatever arcane way you chose, but don’t let it interfere with a meaningful postseason.

I like this idea in theory, but it's implementation could get weird with unintended consequences. For instance, in 2021, the Big 12 and AAC didn't have divisions...so you either motivate conferences to create divisions for the sake of playoff access or you unnecessarily allow a low-ranked division winner access ahead of better and more deserving teams:

(1)Alabama (SEC East)
(2)Michigan (B1G East)
(3)Georgia (SEC East)
(4)Cincinnati (AAC)
(5)Notre Dame (at large)
(6)Ohio State (at large)
(7)Baylor (B12)
(8)Ole Miss (at large)
(9)Oklahoma State (at large)
(10)Michigan State (at large)
(11)Utah (PAC South)
(12)Pittsburgh (ACC Coastal?)
(14)Oregon (PAC North)
(15)Iowa (B1G West)
(17)Wake Forest (ACC Atlantic?)
(23)Louisiana (Sun Belt West)

Left out:
(13)BYU
(16)Oklahoma
(18)NC State
(19)Clemson
(20)Houston
(21)Arkansas
(22)Kentucky

If you arbitrarily and retroactively assign divisions to the AAC and B12, perhaps you open up an at large spot for #13 BYU and leave out #23 Louisiana. Or, may be #16 Oklahoma is the second B12 division winner? Or, may be its unranked Texas...oops, nope, #20 Houston gets in ahead of Texas because they are the (arbitrary) AAC West winner.....

What happens when the SEC rearranges divisional alignment to maximize playoff access?

(01-14-2022 12:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  Division-less when you get to 12 and even more so with 14 or 16 means you frequently determine teams based on arcane tiebreaks instead of on the field.

Part of this (the randomness of conference standings) may, in turn, make conferences more willing to be flexible about the role of CCGs in the National Championship race.

If the CCG participants seem somewhat randomly chosen (to fans), P5 Conferences may be interested in staging 13th games that feature 1 conference-team against a national at large in a Round-of-16 game.

Therefore, relaxing rules regarding CCG participants is a good first step toward a more stream-lined playoff. Hopefully it happens before we start adding more partial, mid-December playoff rounds, muddling the picture even more.

(01-14-2022 12:42 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I've been thinking about 'hidden' objections to various playoff expansion plans. I came up with the opt-out thing the other day and that didn't go over well (LOL), but so here's another:

Seems to me that if a "top 6 champs" plan is adopted, without P5 autobids, then this creates an immediate incentive, heck arguably a necessity, for conferences that current have divisions to drop their divisions and move to the Big 12 "top two meet" format for their CCG. Because with divisions, you run the risk of a situation where a 7-5 division winner upsets a 10-2 ranked division winner in the CCG, and then suddenly your champ isn't in the top six anymore. Even if that now 10-3 team still gets in as an at-large, you've lost the conference champ spot. With P5 autobids you don't need to abandon divisions, because your champ gets in now matter how unranked they might be.

So I would expect that if such a plan passes, conferences like the PAC and ACC would immediately drop their division format. Heck, I would expect even the B1G and SEC to do so as well. There's just no reason to take the risk of a weak-division winner winning the CCG and knocking your champ out of the top six.

But what if, for whatever reason, a conference really likes its divisional set-up? Would it vote against a "top 6" format on that basis? Is the B1G so attached to Leaders and Legends or whatever its divisions are called?

Inquiring minds want to know ...

LOL - the Big Ten went to logical East and West divisions several years ago. It's really the ACC that has the illogical divisions at this point.

That being said, I agree that the incentive for top 6 conference champs would be to have the top two teams meet a la the Big 12.

With Texas and Oklahoma entering the SEC, I believe that the league would actually welcome division-less flexibility at this point. The Big Ten's objection to removing the division requirement seemed to be more about keeping another reason for ND to never join the ACC more than anything logical within (as removing divisions would actually work quite well in the Big Ten in practicality).

IMO, when TX and OU join the SEC, the SEC should go divisionless, or else go to four, four-team divisions. I think two 8-team divisions is inherently unstable, as at that point you basically have two ready-made separate conferences, and one could choose to hive off from the other.

1) Fixed divisions would be a requirement.

2) independents would be disadvantaged. But BYU doesn’t have to worry about that any more. And NDs brand will put them in whenever they have a marginally good enough team. No other independents are relevant. So I don’t think this scenario is relevant to the future landscape.

3) SEC will always have 2 auto bids. If you set 6 as the minimum division size, could this incentivize them to go to 18? Not really because that extra guaranteed spot is likely just stealing one of their at large spots. But they could do 18 with 3 divisions and it wouldn’t really change the model. You might have to add a 12th AQ for the G5. But SEC and B1G expanding to 18 likely means no more ACC, so it evens out.

(01-14-2022 01:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 12:42 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I've been thinking about 'hidden' objections to various playoff expansion plans. I came up with the opt-out thing the other day and that didn't go over well (LOL), but so here's another:

Seems to me that if a "top 6 champs" plan is adopted, without P5 autobids, then this creates an immediate incentive, heck arguably a necessity, for conferences that current have divisions to drop their divisions and move to the Big 12 "top two meet" format for their CCG. Because with divisions, you run the risk of a situation where a 7-5 division winner upsets a 10-2 ranked division winner in the CCG, and then suddenly your champ isn't in the top six anymore. Even if that now 10-3 team still gets in as an at-large, you've lost the conference champ spot. With P5 autobids you don't need to abandon divisions, because your champ gets in now matter how unranked they might be.

So I would expect that if such a plan passes, conferences like the PAC and ACC would immediately drop their division format. Heck, I would expect even the B1G and SEC to do so as well. There's just no reason to take the risk of a weak-division winner winning the CCG and knocking your champ out of the top six.

But what if, for whatever reason, a conference really likes its divisional set-up? Would it vote against a "top 6" format on that basis? Is the B1G so attached to Leaders and Legends or whatever its divisions are called?

Inquiring minds want to know ...

LOL - the Big Ten went to logical East and West divisions several years ago. It's really the ACC that has the illogical divisions at this point.

That being said, I agree that the incentive for top 6 conference champs would be to have the top two teams meet a la the Big 12.

With Texas and Oklahoma entering the SEC, I believe that the league would actually welcome division-less flexibility at this point. The Big Ten's objection to removing the division requirement seemed to be more about keeping another reason for ND to never join the ACC more than anything logical within (as removing divisions would actually work quite well in the Big Ten in practicality).

IMO, when TX and OU join the SEC, the SEC should go divisionless, or else go to four, four-team divisions. I think two 8-team divisions is inherently unstable, as at that point you basically have two ready-made separate conferences, and one could choose to hive off from the other.

I think putting in a rule for fixed divisions with a minimum size of six just means that they’d live with this scenario until the ACC GoR expires. Then the B1G and SEC will raid and go to 18+/3 divisions.

(01-14-2022 01:25 PM)YNot Wrote:  I really like this idea in theory, but it's implementation could get weird with unintended consequences. For instance, in 2021, the Big 12 and AAC didn't have divisions...so you either motivate conferences to create divisions for the sake of playoff access or you unnecessarily allow a low-ranked division winner access ahead of better and more deserving teams:

(1)Alabama (SEC East)
[...]

Well, yes, part of the rationale for not doing "Straight 16" is to give access to "low-ranked winners." That is an intended consequence. Also, you'd use pre-CCG rankings, so #19 SDSU not #24 ULL (or #21 Houston) would get that last spot. Of course if you consider Baylor and OKSt both division champs, the last spot would go to #12 BYU.

Yes, you'd have to set a division-size minimum. I'd vote for 6. Maybe set it at 7 if you also grandfather in the 6-team divisions of the Pac-12 and neo-Big 12, so as to avoid format-driven realignment.

(01-14-2022 01:20 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 01:08 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The problem with CFB is people still care too much about conference championships.

The AFC and NFC conference titles are more of a step on the way to a championship than an end goal. It should be the same in CFB.

The playoff should expand more by eliminating the CCG and using DIVISION champs as the auto qualifiers.

It should be the top 11 DIVISION champs plus 5 at large. That guarantees at least 1 G5 bid while giving the SEC plenty of room for at large bids. And if your P5 conference’s division champs finish behind 3 G5 champs, you’re SOL. Division titles should be the most important goal of regular season play.

Crown the conference champ in whatever arcane way you chose, but don’t let it interfere with a meaningful postseason.

Not a bad thought exercise. I do think that 7-team divisions (with 6-game round-robins) are large enough for this type of reward. Would you make 6 the minimum division size to avoid conferences making small divisions and gathering excess bids?

As with my most-recent thread, conference ownership of these games is the current barrier to such a format. And there don't seem to be economic incentives to convince them to replace them with more equitably-shared revenue games.

Absolutely a 6 member minimum for divisions.

For revenue, I don’t know. I think if payouts are based on bids like the NCAA tournament, then the conference who make the most off of CCGs currently also make the most through multiple at large bids.