header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Down
Author

Topic: 5+1+2 Model

 (Read 11686 times)

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10655
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2 Model
« Reply #28 on: December 07, 2021, 10:15:31 AM »
Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on December 06, 2021, 05:37:46 PM
Will it still be 5+1+2 when the Big 12 becomes a G6 conference?
This, I think, is a really good question.  Once that happens I think there are several options within an 8-team playoff:
  • Keep considering the diluted B12 a Power conference and just stick with 5+1+2
  • Consider them a non-power league and add a second G5 to go to 4+2+2 (four P4 champs, top-2 G6 champs, 2 at-large)
  • Consider them a non-power league and add a third at-large to go to 4+1+3 (four P4 champs, top G6 champ, 3 at-large)
Quote from: utee94 on December 06, 2021, 05:39:48 PM
I'd be surprised if the B12 loses its P5 status, with respect to official voting capability and whatnot. 

Fans might consider it a G5, but fans are stupid and already consider it a G5, despite it being significantly better than both the ACC and the PAC for most of the past decade.
I think you are right to an extent.  The B12 even without Texas and Oklahoma is much stronger (at least for now) than any of the current G5 but it would also be much weaker than any of the other current P5 so I think it would exist as a sort-of hybrid and I have no idea how the powers that be would address that.  The expanded SEC would DEFINITELY want more at-large slots because with that many helmets they'd have a good chance of getting multiple at-large teams and limiting them to a maximum of three teams (their champ and the two at-large slots) would be something they would strongly oppose.  
Logged

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10655
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2 Model
« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2021, 10:15:57 AM »
Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on December 06, 2021, 05:58:20 PM
I liked the proposed 12 team model.
Really, I'm surprised.  I thought it was pretty roundly disliked around here.  
Logged

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12098
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2 Model
« Reply #30 on: December 07, 2021, 10:16:50 AM »
Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on December 06, 2021, 05:37:46 PM
Will it still be 5+1+2 when the Big 12 becomes a G6 conference?


Where do you think that Purdue would finish in the new Big 12?
Logged

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10655
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2 Model
« Reply #31 on: December 07, 2021, 10:22:49 AM »
Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on December 06, 2021, 06:11:26 PM
I don't think we need 12. It introduces byes and an extra week of games relative to 8. If it's a 6 auto and 6 at-large, that's too many at large teams IMHO and devalues the regular season. If it's 10+2 it's too many tall midgets.

8 (5+1+2 or 6+2) is the right compromise. It maintains the importance of conference championships, it's still exclusive, but the at large selections allow worthy non-champs a seat at the table.
I agree with all of this.  Auto-bids for every league would let in comically bad tall midgets like the Miami of Ohio team that won the MAC in 2019 but lost by 70 to Ohio State and also had multiple other blowout losses to power teams.  We don't need to see them on the field with a legitimate NC contender to know they don't belong.  

At the same time, six at-large would diminish the regular season to a ridiculous extent.  In this year's rankings if we had 12 under a 5+1+6 model the playoff teams would be:
  • 12-1 Bama, SEC Champion
  • 12-1 Michigan, B1G Champion
  • 12-1 Georgia at-large
  • 13-0 Cincy, G5
  • 11-1 Notre Dame, at-large
  • 10-2 Ohio State, at-large
  • 11-2 Baylor, B12
  • 10-2 Ole Miss, at-large
  • 11-2 OkSU, at-large
  • 10-2 Michigan State, at-large
  • 10-3 Utah, PAC
  • 11-2 Pitt, ACC

That lets in four two-loss P5 non-champions out of five total (the other is 10-2 Oklahoma).  Ie, P5 teams would have a MUCH better than 50/50 chance with two losses and no championship.  

Logged

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 22289
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2 Model
« Reply #32 on: December 07, 2021, 10:27:58 AM »
Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on December 07, 2021, 10:15:31 AM
This, I think, is a really good question.  Once that happens I think there are several options within an 8-team playoff:
  • Keep considering the diluted B12 a Power conference and just stick with 5+1+2
  • Consider them a non-power league and add a second G5 to go to 4+2+2 (four P4 champs, top-2 G6 champs, 2 at-large)
  • Consider them a non-power league and add a third at-large to go to 4+1+3 (four P4 champs, top G6 champ, 3 at-large)
I think you are right to an extent.  The B12 even without Texas and Oklahoma is much stronger (at least for now) than any of the current G5 but it would also be much weaker than any of the other current P5 so I think it would exist as a sort-of hybrid and I have no idea how the powers that be would address that.  The expanded SEC would DEFINITELY want more at-large slots because with that many helmets they'd have a good chance of getting multiple at-large teams and limiting them to a maximum of three teams (their champ and the two at-large slots) would be something they would strongly oppose. 
I don't think that's true.  I think Baylor and Oklahoma State would be at the top of either the PAC or the ACC right now.  And BYU will be added in a couple of years, and they've just completed a 5-0 sweep of the PAC teams on their 2021 schedule, including beating PAC champ Utah.
Logged

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12098
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2 Model
« Reply #33 on: December 07, 2021, 10:30:34 AM »
Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on December 07, 2021, 10:15:57 AM
Really, I'm surprised.  I thought it was pretty roundly disliked around here. 


The top 6 Conference Champions (instead of the 5 P5 Champions plus the top G5 team) is what I am referencing here. 

Say the AAC and MWC champions are both undefeated, while a 5 loss Northwestern emerged from the B1G West and somehow knocked off an undefeated Penn St or whoever else, then Northwestern doesn't automatically get in over an undefeated G5 Conference Champion just because they won the Big Ten. 

You could argue that 6 is too many at large, but 2 is probably too few. 

I also don't find the bye weeks objectionable because it rewards the best teams. My only gripe was that the top four didn't get home games in the quarterfinals, but apparently the Big Ten schools are too cheap to install year round plumbing according to Gene Smith. 
Logged

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10655
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2 Model
« Reply #34 on: December 07, 2021, 10:32:12 AM »
Quote from: Mdot21 on December 06, 2021, 06:13:09 PM
I think 12 is probably the right number. 4 is just not enough. There are 130 FBS teams. Right now only 3% get in. Going to 12 is still only 9% of the teams getting into the post-season. In the NFL are 32 teams, and 14 make the post-season- so nearly 44% of that league gets in the playoffs.

12 seems like the magic number to me, and it ensures more parity and equality in the sport, and prevents one team from overloading and stacking the deck. Lot of kids pick Bama just because they want to play in the playoff and they know that's basically the only school they are guaranteed to do so at. You open it up to 12- that won't happen as much.
I disagree all over the place.  First, I think four is too many rather than not enough.  Looking at this year I'd be perfectly happy with the old BCS and Michigan playing Alabama for the title.  Here is what I'd say to the teams thus excluded:
  • To Georgia:  Beat Bama sometime then get back to us
  • To Cincy:  Try playing a schedule that includes more than one or two competent opponents.  
  • To Notre Dame:  Try playing a MUCH tougher schedule or going undefeated.  
  • To Ohio State (and everybody below them):  Try not losing TWICE.  


Yes the NFL lets 44% of their teams in the playoffs and for that matter it is over 50% in the NBA but there are some major differences:
  • NFL teams are MUCH more tightly grouped talent-wise than CFB teams.  Even bad NFL teams are REALLY good at football they just aren't quite as good as the better NFL teams.  In the NFL this year only three games total have been decided by 40 or more points.  By comparison half of Ohio State's 10 victories this year were by 40 or more points (by 52 over Akron, by 49 over UMD, by 47 over IU, by 49 over MSU).  
  • The regular season just doesn't have the intensity that we love in CFB.  The Browns lost to the Steelers a few weeks ago, it sucks but hey we get another crack at them and we can make the playoffs regardless.  That is nothing like the pain of my Buckeyes losing to Michigan, getting knocked out of the CFP, and having no chance for redemption until next year.  The intensity isn't even close.  

Logged

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10655
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2 Model
« Reply #35 on: December 07, 2021, 10:35:33 AM »
Quote from: utee94 on December 06, 2021, 06:29:44 PM
I think 12 is terrible because byes are terrible.

8 is the most I'd ever like to see.  5+2+1 seems like the best mix, as well.

But like CD, I know I don't have any say in it so I'll do my best to enjoy what we get.
Quote from: Honestbuckeye on December 06, 2021, 06:39:54 PM
Ditto
I agree and I'll add another reason.  Really, byes serve no function except to prepare the landscape for yet another expansion.  If we go to 12 then at least some of them will be playing up to three post-season games.  Why not go to 16 and have all of them play up to three post-season games?  I think if we went to 12 the expansion from there to 16 would be completely inevitable but if we stop at eight we MIGHT actually stay at eight to avoid an extra game.  Once you add that extra game for some teams there really isn't anything to keep you from adding it for the rest.  
Logged

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 22289
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2 Model
« Reply #36 on: December 07, 2021, 10:38:44 AM »
Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on December 07, 2021, 10:35:33 AM
I agree and I'll add another reason.  Really, byes serve no function except to prepare the landscape for yet another expansion.  If we go to 12 then at least some of them will be playing up to three post-season games.  Why not go to 16 and have all of them play up to three post-season games?  I think if we went to 12 the expansion from there to 16 would be completely inevitable but if we stop at eight we MIGHT actually stay at eight to avoid an extra game.  Once you add that extra game for some teams there really isn't anything to keep you from adding it for the rest. 
Yup.  And I'd still be in favor of playing the first-round game at the home stadium of the higher seed for two reasons.  First, as a reward, and second, to have a better chance at filling up post-season stadiums and avoiding fan-travel-fatigue.
Logged

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10655
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2 Model
« Reply #37 on: December 07, 2021, 10:43:26 AM »
Quote from: LittlePig on December 06, 2021, 08:03:26 PM
The different parties may have to compromise.  The SEC and ND want a plan that keeps at least 4 at large teams.  The Big Alliance and B12 want all P5 conferences to get an automatic bid.  The G5 wants the top 6 conference champions to get in.

The minimum to achieve all that is 10 total teams.  6 conference champions + 4 at large teams.

They could set it up so that the top 4 conference champs get the top 4 seeds, a first round bye and get to host the 2nd round games at home.  Conference champs 5-6 get a first round bye and then play the 2nd round on the road.. 

The first round would be the 4 at larges with seeds 7-8 hosting seeds 9-10 at home.

After the first round,  seeds 5-8 get re-seeded for the 2nd round.
There are definitely compromises that will have to be made.  Personally I don't want the top G5 or I'd at least like a minimum ranking requirement to avoid having to take a really weak G5 champion in a year when none of the G5 Champs are all that good but the G5 are going to WAIL if they aren't included so I think you have to throw them a bone.  

The P5, particularly the P12, ACC, and what is left of the B12 are going to want auto-bids.  That is less of an issue for the B1G and pretty much a non-issue for the SEC.  

I would just hate to compromise so much that we end up with four at-large because, to me, that just waters down the regular season way too much.  You'd have WAY too many games like tOSU/M this year where with four at-large teams both would already be locked in regardless.  

I also don't think that second round games at home are probably feasible.  I wrote it as having first round games at home with the expectation that the first round games would be a week (or maybe two weeks) after the CG's so this year that would be either December 11 or December 18, then second round games at bowl sites close to NYD, then a CG in January.  Maybe, I don't know.  
Logged

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10655
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2 Model
« Reply #38 on: December 07, 2021, 10:46:19 AM »
Quote from: um1963 on December 06, 2021, 11:34:30 PM
Eight is the ideal number.  P5 champs receive automatic bids, 3 at large bids based on final rankings.  Top four teams in final rankings receive 1st round home field.  I'd prefer to just take the top 8 teams, but would be ok with conference champs receiving automatic bids.  There are years where there are no good candidates from G5 so I would not be in favor of an auto bid.  If they're that good, they shouldn't have any problem finishing in the top 8 in the final rankings.
In theory I'd prefer to add a minimum ranking requirement for the top G5 to avoid having to take a ridiculously weak G5 Champ in a year when none of them are any good but in practice I just don't see they flying.  

I specified that the top-4 Champs host rather than the top-4 teams as a reward for winning a league.  I'd say to #3 UGA that if they want to host a CFP game they need to figure out a way to beat Bama.  
Logged

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10655
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2 Model
« Reply #39 on: December 07, 2021, 10:49:07 AM »
Quote from: rolltidefan on December 07, 2021, 10:11:07 AM
i still don't like auto qualifiers for conf champs, unless there's a caveat of must be top 10 or 12 or something. as recently as 2017 there was a not unrealistic chance of 2 p5 conf champs having 4 losses before the bowls. utah this year has 3 losses, though in their defense this was a crazy year and they'd almost meet (or do for 12) criteria above anyway. point being, this year there's a decent argument they wouldn't pass anyone clearly more deserving. but in 2017, a lot of teams would have been.
I get that and in theory I agree but in practice I think compromises will have to be made.  Additionally, even within the P5 there is so little high-end inter-league play that we don't really KNOW much.  We are making assumptions based on statistics that are pretty far removed.  

I do realize that there will eventually be a 4-loss B1G-W Champion or a 4-loss ACC-whatever Champion that has a great day in their CG and gets in but I guess I'm ok with that.  
Logged

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14561
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2 Model
« Reply #40 on: December 07, 2021, 10:52:00 AM »
Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on December 07, 2021, 10:16:50 AM

Where do you think that Purdue would finish in the new Big 12?
In the B1G it's clear that Purdue will never recruit on the level of the three helmets (M, OSU, PSU). So I feel any chance they have at a conference championship will be an extreme outlier year.

I don't fear anyone in the new Big 12. When Purdue is good (by Purdue standards) they'd contend. When they're not, well obviously they'd still be trying to beat Kansas like they try to beat IU today...
Logged

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10655
  • Liked:
Re: 5+1+2 Model
« Reply #41 on: December 07, 2021, 10:55:40 AM »
Quote from: utee94 on December 07, 2021, 10:38:44 AM
Yup.  And I'd still be in favor of playing the first-round game at the home stadium of the higher seed for two reasons.  First, as a reward, and second, to have a better chance at filling up post-season stadiums and avoiding fan-travel-fatigue.
With the minor quibble that I'd prefer the hosts to be the top-4 Champions rather than the top-4 teams I agree.  

I think your point about post-season fan-travel-fatigue is IMPORTANT and it is one of the reasons that I proposed home games in the first round.  I went to the BCSNCG at the Fiesta Bowl in 2003 when tOSU won the 2002 National Championship.  Back then the game before the Fiesta Bowl was the Michigan game in Ohio Stadium which I also attended because I had season tickets back then.  To see all the same things happen in the current set-up I'd have to attend:
  • The Game against Michigan.  
  • The B1GCG in Indianapolis.  
  • The CFP Semi-Final.  
  • The CFP Championship.  

We've already doubled it and tripled the number of games NOT at home.  It isn't just fan-travel-fatigue, it is also fan-spending-fatigue.  

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Up
« previous next »
 
Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.
Molon Labe Medallion

EGA- Once and Always