https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/colleg...vironment/

Bob Bowlsby explains his preferred Playoff format, calls it an 'eat what you kill environment'
Keith Farner | 3 hours ago

Bob Bowlsby has been in the middle of the College Football Playoff expansion talks, and has made his position clear as the sport looks for a new postseason model.

“I continue to believe that the 12-team model is the right model,” Bowlsby, the Big 12 Commissioner, said on Sirius XM. “I don’t think 8 goes quite far enough, and there are others who believe that way as well.”

Bowlsby said there’s great debate about automatic qualifiers regardless of record or rank for each of the autonomy conferences, which is fine for the Big 12, he said. Bowlsby also believes that the 6 highest-ranked conference champions ought to get the initial berths in the Playoff.

“That’s sort of an eat-what-you-kill environment,” he said. “I do think that the plan that came out in June was well-received and even among media pundits, I think it received very little in the way of legitimate criticism.”

Bowlsby admitted that he’s frustrated with where the Playoff stands now, in a stalled position. But admits that the group must get back to the table and figure it out.

“The irony of all of it is 18 months from now we’re going to be up against a hard time deadline because we’re going to be getting to Year 12 and there isn’t a Playoff past Year 12,” he said. “We will end up with an expanded Playoff, I don’t think there’s any question about it.”

The only question that remains is the timeline for when the change comes, he said.

College Football Playoff expansion has hit a snag. @Big12Conference Commissioner Bob Bowlsby breaks down why and what format he’s pushing for. pic.twitter.com/JQQKglL6sl

— College Sports on SiriusXM (@SXMCollege) January 27, 2022

I’ll give Bowlsby credit here for having a principled stand: he has been consistent on a 6+6 format even though a 5+1+6 format would help the Big 12 more than any other league. I believe that he’s seeing the broader picture that a 12-team playoff format is simply straight up better for everyone, so he hasn’t pushed for P5 auto-bids despite it being heavily in his league’s interests to do so.

No question

Hmmm.

An interesting idea just occurred to me. What if they guarunteed all P5 champions a spot and also guarunteed the top 6 conference champions a spot. Once those spots are filled, the rest go to at-large teams.

So most years the top 6 conference champions would be 5 P5 + 1 G5, so there would 6 at large teams.

Some years the top 6 conference champion would be 4 P5 + 2 G5. So in that case there would be 7 automatic spots and 5 at large.

Worst case, highly unlikely, top 6 champions would be 1 P5 + 5 G5, so there would would be 10 automatic spots and 2 at large teams

(01-28-2022 08:58 AM)goofus Wrote:  Hmmm.

An interesting idea just occurred to me. What if they guarunteed all P5 champions a spot and also guarunteed the top 6 conference champions a spot. Once those spots are filled, the rest go to at-large teams.

So most years the top 6 conference champions would be 5 P5 + 1 G5, so there would 6 at large teams.

Some years the top 6 conference champion would be 4 P5 + 2 G5. So in that case there would be 7 automatic spots and 5 at large.

Worst case, highly unlikely, top 6 champions would be 1 P5 + 5 G5, so there would would be 10 automatic spots and 2 at large teams

Interesting idea, but IMO it runs aground on two points:

1) The SEC and ND aren't going to want to run the risk, even if it is small, of having significant reductions in at-large bids, and that's where the extra spots for champs will come from.

2) For the G5, IMO the issue of P5 autobids is symbolic more than about the technical issue of getting teams in. All the formats being discussed guarantee that at least one G5 gets in, but P5 autobids in any guise stigmatizes the G5 as 'second class'.

He's smart- he knows that basically a 6+6 system would have 8 votes for sure already. Big 12, SEC, ND, and the 5 G5 conferences.

(01-27-2022 11:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’ll give Bowlsby credit here for having a principled stand: he has been consistent on a 6+6 format even though a 5+1+6 format would help the Big 12 more than any other league. I believe that he’s seeing the broader picture that a 12-team playoff format is simply straight up better for everyone, so he hasn’t pushed for P5 auto-bids despite it being heavily in his league’s interests to do so.

Agree about the Big 12 benefitting the most from P5 autobids.

For them, it's not the technical issue of getting a team in. I think the new Big 12 will likely perform quite well on the field, akin to the 2005-2012 Big East after it lost Miami, VT and BC. To miss the playoffs in a 6+6, the new Big 12 can afford to be beaten out by one G5 league, it only misses the playoffs if it finishes behind two G5 champs, something that IMO is extremely unlikely. To me, the new Big 12 is more likely, in any given year, to finish ahead of one of the P4 champs than it is to finish behind a single G5 champ. Finishing behind two would be IMO highly unlikely.

E.g., in the computers, the 2005-2012 Big East finished ahead of other AQ conferences in several of those years. It never finished behind a non-AQ conference, even though this was a time when the WAC and MW were stronger conferences than any of the G5 are today.

What the new Big 12 desperately needs is affirmation, formal and symbolic, of "power status", and P5 autobids, with them as one of the P5, would basically give them that stamp of approval.

So long story long, I agree that Bowlsby has shown integrity. Maybe to a fault, if I am a member of the new Big 12, LOL.

(01-28-2022 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-27-2022 11:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’ll give Bowlsby credit here for having a principled stand: he has been consistent on a 6+6 format even though a 5+1+6 format would help the Big 12 more than any other league. I believe that he’s seeing the broader picture that a 12-team playoff format is simply straight up better for everyone, so he hasn’t pushed for P5 auto-bids despite it being heavily in his league’s interests to do so.

Agree about the Big 12 benefitting the most from P5 autobids.

For them, it's not the technical issue of getting a team in. I think the new Big 12 will likely perform quite well on the field, akin to the 2005-2012 Big East after it lost Miami, VT and BC. To miss the playoffs in a 6+6, the new Big 12 can afford to be beaten out by one G5 league, it only misses the playoffs if it finishes behind two G5 champs, something that IMO is extremely unlikely. To me, the new Big 12 is more likely, in any given year, to finish ahead of one of the P4 champs than it is to finish behind a single G5 champ. Finishing behind two would be IMO highly unlikely.

E.g., in the computers, the 2005-2012 Big East finished ahead of other AQ conferences in several of those years. It never finished behind a non-AQ conference, even though this was a time when the WAC and MW were stronger conferences than any of the G5 are today.

What the new Big 12 desperately needs is affirmation, formal and symbolic, of "power status", and P5 autobids, with them as one of the P5, would basically give them that stamp of approval.

So long story long, I agree that Bowlsby has shown integrity. Maybe to a fault, if I am a member of the new Big 12, LOL.

The conference rankings wouldn't matter. It's where the conference champion is ranked though. MWC was ahead of Sun Belt this year- but Louisiana would have been higher than Utah State. It's not the champions of the 6 best conferences. It's the 6 best conference champions. Can be a huge difference.

2010 would be prime example. Boise St from the WAC would have gotten into the playoff as the 6th best conference champion over both the ACC and Big East- despite the WAC being behind both of those conferences.

(01-28-2022 09:22 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-27-2022 11:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’ll give Bowlsby credit here for having a principled stand: he has been consistent on a 6+6 format even though a 5+1+6 format would help the Big 12 more than any other league. I believe that he’s seeing the broader picture that a 12-team playoff format is simply straight up better for everyone, so he hasn’t pushed for P5 auto-bids despite it being heavily in his league’s interests to do so.

Agree about the Big 12 benefitting the most from P5 autobids.

For them, it's not the technical issue of getting a team in. I think the new Big 12 will likely perform quite well on the field, akin to the 2005-2012 Big East after it lost Miami, VT and BC. To miss the playoffs in a 6+6, the new Big 12 can afford to be beaten out by one G5 league, it only misses the playoffs if it finishes behind two G5 champs, something that IMO is extremely unlikely. To me, the new Big 12 is more likely, in any given year, to finish ahead of one of the P4 champs than it is to finish behind a single G5 champ. Finishing behind two would be IMO highly unlikely.

E.g., in the computers, the 2005-2012 Big East finished ahead of other AQ conferences in several of those years. It never finished behind a non-AQ conference, even though this was a time when the WAC and MW were stronger conferences than any of the G5 are today.

What the new Big 12 desperately needs is affirmation, formal and symbolic, of "power status", and P5 autobids, with them as one of the P5, would basically give them that stamp of approval.

So long story long, I agree that Bowlsby has shown integrity. Maybe to a fault, if I am a member of the new Big 12, LOL.

The conference rankings wouldn't matter. It's where the conference champion is ranked though. MWC was ahead of Sun Belt this year- but Louisiana would have been higher than Utah State. It's not the champions of the 6 best conferences. It's the 6 best conference champions. Can be a huge difference.

Yep, good point.

But that noted, I think the overall point still stands. IMO it is very doubtful that the new B12 champ would ever fall behind two G5 champs in the rankings. None of the going-forward G5 seem to have anything like the Boise/TCU/Utah teams of the late 2000s that would often rise in to the BCS top 10, or even top 5.

(01-28-2022 09:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 08:58 AM)goofus Wrote:  Hmmm.

An interesting idea just occurred to me. What if they guarunteed all P5 champions a spot and also guarunteed the top 6 conference champions a spot. Once those spots are filled, the rest go to at-large teams.

So most years the top 6 conference champions would be 5 P5 + 1 G5, so there would 6 at large teams.

Some years the top 6 conference champion would be 4 P5 + 2 G5. So in that case there would be 7 automatic spots and 5 at large.

Worst case, highly unlikely, top 6 champions would be 1 P5 + 5 G5, so there would would be 10 automatic spots and 2 at large teams

Interesting idea, but IMO it runs aground on two points:

1) The SEC and ND aren't going to want to run the risk, even if it is small, of having significant reductions in at-large bids, and that's where the extra spots for champs will come from.

2) For the G5, IMO the issue of P5 autobids is symbolic more than about the technical issue of getting teams in. All the formats being discussed guarantee that at least one G5 gets in, but P5 autobids in any guise stigmatizes the G5 as 'second class'.

I agree, Quo. There's too much structured condescension toward the G5 already. This "we'll throw you a bone" approach for a playoff format is too much of a biased and controlling attitude at work.

All P5 conferences are not equal in membership, strength, and performance. It is a sliding scale with shifting. The same is evident with the G-5. Any playoff system that doesn't take into account overlap and excess, power fluctuations year to year, and acknowledge that exceptions frequently happen; then flaws, and thus controversy, are built into a favored and politically-motivated design.

I want to see the eight or twelve "best" wherever they come from. If it is all subjective, human judgment with an abundance of guarantees, I am not sure such satisfies the original intent.

(01-27-2022 11:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’ll give Bowlsby credit here for having a principled stand: he has been consistent on a 6+6 format even though a 5+1+6 format would help the Big 12 more than any other league. I believe that he’s seeing the broader picture that a 12-team playoff format is simply straight up better for everyone, so he hasn’t pushed for P5 auto-bids despite it being heavily in his league’s interests to do so.

Of course because it would have put an Oklahoma team that played so poorly week in and week out (given their 5* recruits) straight into playoff

(01-28-2022 10:07 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(01-27-2022 11:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’ll give Bowlsby credit here for having a principled stand: he has been consistent on a 6+6 format even though a 5+1+6 format would help the Big 12 more than any other league. I believe that he’s seeing the broader picture that a 12-team playoff format is simply straight up better for everyone, so he hasn’t pushed for P5 auto-bids despite it being heavily in his league’s interests to do so.

Of course because it would have put an Oklahoma team that played so poorly week in and week out (given their 5* recruits) straight into playoff

what are you talking about? Oklahoma wouldn't have been close to the playoff this year in a 6+6 format. They finished 16th regular season. Would have been the 4th team out of the playoffs at large.

(01-28-2022 09:49 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 09:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 08:58 AM)goofus Wrote:  Hmmm.

An interesting idea just occurred to me. What if they guarunteed all P5 champions a spot and also guarunteed the top 6 conference champions a spot. Once those spots are filled, the rest go to at-large teams.

So most years the top 6 conference champions would be 5 P5 + 1 G5, so there would 6 at large teams.

Some years the top 6 conference champion would be 4 P5 + 2 G5. So in that case there would be 7 automatic spots and 5 at large.

Worst case, highly unlikely, top 6 champions would be 1 P5 + 5 G5, so there would would be 10 automatic spots and 2 at large teams

Interesting idea, but IMO it runs aground on two points:

1) The SEC and ND aren't going to want to run the risk, even if it is small, of having significant reductions in at-large bids, and that's where the extra spots for champs will come from.

2) For the G5, IMO the issue of P5 autobids is symbolic more than about the technical issue of getting teams in. All the formats being discussed guarantee that at least one G5 gets in, but P5 autobids in any guise stigmatizes the G5 as 'second class'.

I agree, Quo. There's too much structured condescension toward the G5 already. This "we'll throw you a bone" approach for a playoff format is too much of a biased and controlling attitude at work.

All P5 conferences are not equal in membership, strength, and performance. It is a sliding scale with shifting. The same is evident with the G-5. Any playoff system that doesn't take into account overlap and excess, power fluctuations year to year, and acknowledge that exceptions frequently happen; then flaws, and thus controversy, are built into a favored and politically-motivated design.

I want to see the eight or twelve "best" wherever they come from. If it is all subjective, human judgment with an abundance of guarantees, I am not sure such satisfies the original intent.

Not sure I'm getting your intent here. Are you saying you prefer no autobids at all, including P5 champions? Don't get me wrong -- that would be my preference. But G5 schools would likely balk at that, since in many years they would be shut out entirely, and would almost never get two teams in.

With every new round of realignment the quality of G5 teams declines, as their best teams are generally the ones moving up to a P5 conference. Their only hope in a straight 8 or 12 would be if one of their members is overrated by virtue of having one or fewer losses against inferior competition. Sadly, the way not just human polls or committees are prone to overvalue the criterion of fewer losses, but even computer models as well, means that we often would not have only the "best" teams in the playoffs.

But even if we exclude a team that actually (if that were possible to know) is better than one that got in, chances are that such a team would not have been capable of winning four games in a 12 team CFP.

(01-28-2022 08:58 AM)goofus Wrote:  Hmmm.

An interesting idea just occurred to me. What if they guarunteed all P5 champions a spot and also guarunteed the top 6 conference champions a spot. Once those spots are filled, the rest go to at-large teams.

So most years the top 6 conference champions would be 5 P5 + 1 G5, so there would 6 at large teams.

Some years the top 6 conference champion would be 4 P5 + 2 G5. So in that case there would be 7 automatic spots and 5 at large.

Worst case, highly unlikely, top 6 champions would be 1 P5 + 5 G5, so there would would be 10 automatic spots and 2 at large teams

KISS

Bowel movement towards the 6 + 6 is happening rapidly.

(01-28-2022 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-27-2022 11:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’ll give Bowlsby credit here for having a principled stand: he has been consistent on a 6+6 format even though a 5+1+6 format would help the Big 12 more than any other league. I believe that he’s seeing the broader picture that a 12-team playoff format is simply straight up better for everyone, so he hasn’t pushed for P5 auto-bids despite it being heavily in his league’s interests to do so.

E.g., in the computers, the 2005-2012 Big East finished ahead of other AQ conferences in several of those years. It never finished behind a non-AQ conference, even though this was a time when the WAC and MW were stronger conferences than any of the G5 are today.

What the new Big 12 desperately needs is affirmation, formal and symbolic, of "power status", and P5 autobids, with them as one of the P5, would basically give them that stamp of approval.

So long story long, I agree that Bowlsby has shown integrity. Maybe to a fault, if I am a member of the new Big 12, LOL.

That’s right.

Although there are a lot of Franks out there, the Big 12 isn’t worried about top-6 because it realizes it’s in equal or better position than two other of the P5’s, let alone G5, to make it in the top-6. The benefit of auto is more in the fanboy perception world, which isn’t not important, but not worth holding out for given worst case is staying at 4, in which you’d have Ok St scoring on the final drive, winning the title this year, but not in the playoffs after Bama upset UGa.

(01-28-2022 09:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 09:22 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-27-2022 11:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’ll give Bowlsby credit here for having a principled stand: he has been consistent on a 6+6 format even though a 5+1+6 format would help the Big 12 more than any other league. I believe that he’s seeing the broader picture that a 12-team playoff format is simply straight up better for everyone, so he hasn’t pushed for P5 auto-bids despite it being heavily in his league’s interests to do so.

Agree about the Big 12 benefitting the most from P5 autobids.

For them, it's not the technical issue of getting a team in. I think the new Big 12 will likely perform quite well on the field, akin to the 2005-2012 Big East after it lost Miami, VT and BC. To miss the playoffs in a 6+6, the new Big 12 can afford to be beaten out by one G5 league, it only misses the playoffs if it finishes behind two G5 champs, something that IMO is extremely unlikely. To me, the new Big 12 is more likely, in any given year, to finish ahead of one of the P4 champs than it is to finish behind a single G5 champ. Finishing behind two would be IMO highly unlikely.

E.g., in the computers, the 2005-2012 Big East finished ahead of other AQ conferences in several of those years. It never finished behind a non-AQ conference, even though this was a time when the WAC and MW were stronger conferences than any of the G5 are today.

What the new Big 12 desperately needs is affirmation, formal and symbolic, of "power status", and P5 autobids, with them as one of the P5, would basically give them that stamp of approval.

So long story long, I agree that Bowlsby has shown integrity. Maybe to a fault, if I am a member of the new Big 12, LOL.

The conference rankings wouldn't matter. It's where the conference champion is ranked though. MWC was ahead of Sun Belt this year- but Louisiana would have been higher than Utah State. It's not the champions of the 6 best conferences. It's the 6 best conference champions. Can be a huge difference.

Yep, good point.

But that noted, I think the overall point still stands. IMO it is very doubtful that the new B12 champ would ever fall behind two G5 champs in the rankings. None of the going-forward G5 seem to have anything like the Boise/TCU/Utah teams of the late 2000s that would often rise in to the BCS top 10, or even top 5.

The new Big 12 may well regularly be the 3rd strongest conference. They certainly would have been this year. But without Texas and Oklahoma, they may not have a top 3 or 4 champion as often.

(01-28-2022 08:58 AM)goofus Wrote:  Hmmm.

An interesting idea just occurred to me. What if they guarunteed all P5 champions a spot and also guarunteed the top 6 conference champions a spot. Once those spots are filled, the rest go to at-large teams.

So most years the top 6 conference champions would be 5 P5 + 1 G5, so there would 6 at large teams.

Some years the top 6 conference champion would be 4 P5 + 2 G5. So in that case there would be 7 automatic spots and 5 at large.

Worst case, highly unlikely, top 6 champions would be 1 P5 + 5 G5, so there would would be 10 automatic spots and 2 at large teams

That’s an intriguing and/or clause that they could add in that would, on very rare occasions, yield a 7th autobid. That seems like an acceptable compromise.

(01-28-2022 12:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 08:58 AM)goofus Wrote:  Hmmm.

An interesting idea just occurred to me. What if they guarunteed all P5 champions a spot and also guarunteed the top 6 conference champions a spot. Once those spots are filled, the rest go to at-large teams.

So most years the top 6 conference champions would be 5 P5 + 1 G5, so there would 6 at large teams.

Some years the top 6 conference champion would be 4 P5 + 2 G5. So in that case there would be 7 automatic spots and 5 at large.

Worst case, highly unlikely, top 6 champions would be 1 P5 + 5 G5, so there would would be 10 automatic spots and 2 at large teams

KISS

Agreed - KISS is critical.

If you can't explain the playoff system to a 4th grader, then it's too complicated. Having some type of flex system to try to be perfect in every situation in every year sounds nice in theory, but ultimately just leads to more chaos and complaints. 6+6, 5+1+6 or straight top 12 are all KISS. Anything that starts bringing in, "If x happens, then y gets a bid instead of z" scenarios won't work in practicality.