Started By
Message
Why/how a 6-team CFP and conf realignment would improve CFB
Posted on 1/29/21 at 9:00 pm
Posted on 1/29/21 at 9:00 pm
Advocates of an 8-team CFP w/automatic bids for P5 conference champs and a G5 push false narratives that it'll improve CFB and fan interest. But their very flawed CFP model not only makes it likely that some of the best FBS teams will be excluded from the CFP, it'll also reduce CFB's #1 appeal -- what CFB needs more of -- competitive regular season games that matter.
How to expand CFP opportunities and get more competitive & appealing regular season games:
FBS CFP - top 6 teams per committee rankings: No auto-bids. Rnd-1: #6@#3, #5@#4, #1/#2 bye. Rnd-2: R1 winners vs #1/#2. Final 1st Sat in Jan.
A top-6 CFP allows all 5 P5 conf champs & a G5 to get in and has key advantages over an 8-team with 6 auto-bids. Auto-bids for P5 conf-champs discourage scheduling good out-of-conf teams. The top-6 model with round-1 byes for #1 & #2 and home-fields for #3 & #4 encourages it -- in order to achieve higher seeding. Also, #8 at #1 and #7 at #2 games would probably be routs. Worst of all, 6 of 8 as auto-bids would result in undeserving multi-loss conf champs getting in over 1-loss non-champs with better resumés.
FBS scheduling criteria - to qualify for the CFP:
• 12 games in Sep-Nov; CCGs 1st Fri-Sat in Dec.
• P5 must schedule 9 in-conf, 1 other P5, 0 FCS.
• G5 must schedule 8 in-conf, 3 to 4 P5s, 0 FCS.
CFP expansion to 6 teams, with the criteria that G5s must schedule 3-4 P5s to qualify, will give G5s a viable means to achieve a top-6 ranking. Since P5s can & will schedule a couple of G5s, good G5s like Memphis, ULL or CCU aspiring to reach the top-6 can find 3-4 good P5s seeking a quality G5 opponent to strengthen their resumé. Teams without CFP expectations don't have to schedule out-of-conf P5s; instead they can aim for bowl eligibility.
Conf realignment to bolster rivalries & balance: 14 teams in each P5 conf & 12 in each G5 conf.
-- P5 conf cross-div: 1 fixed; 6 rotate in 2 slots.
-- G5 conf cross-div: 0 fixed; 6 rotate in 3 slots.
6 G5 (UCF, Cin, Houston, SMU, Boise, SDS) move to P5, likely enabling better hiring and recruiting.
2 small private schools Vandy & Wake go to G5. Conf TV revenue split equally among its teams; Big12 lost Neb, Col, ATM & Miz due to unequal.
Division 1A (FBS P5) = 70 teams:
(moves underlined; cross-div rivals paired)
ACC (14) - Atlantic
N: BC, Syr, Pitt, WVU, VT, VA, MD
S: Mia, DU, NC, NCS, CL, SC, UCF
B1G (14) - Northern
E: UM, MS, Ind, Cin, OSU, PSU, Rtg
W: ND, NW, Pur, Illn, Iowa, Wis, MN
B12 (14) - Central
N: OU, OSt, Neb, Miz, Kan, KSt, ISU
S: Tex, Bay, Col, Hou, SMU, TT, TCU
PAC (14) - Pacific
N: OR, BYU, UT, OS, WA, WS, Boise
S: SC, Ucla, AS, AZ, Stn, Cal, SDSt
SEC (14) - Southeastern
E : TN, GA, FLA, FSU, UK, Lou, GT
W: UA, AU, LSU, aTm, AR, OM, MS
Bama's out-of-conf & cross-div rotations:
9th SEC replaces FCS; 6 SEC-West games
in 2nd half of season; 7 homes & 5 aways.
'22: vs G5, vs P5, vs G5; at UK, vs FS, at TN
'23: vs G5, at P5, vs G5; vs UL, at Ga, vs TN
'24: vs G5, vs P5, vs G5; at GT, vs UF, at TN
'25: vs G5, at P5, vs G5; vs UK, at FS, vs TN
'26: vs G5, vs P5, vs G5; at UL, vs Ga, at TN
'27: vs G5, at P5, vs G5; vs GT, at UF, vs TN
Consistent schedule grids for all conferences (with 1 bye occurring only after game 6 or 7) would simplify in- and out-of-conf scheduling.
Division 1B (FBS G5) = 60 teams:
(moves underlined)
AAC (12) - Eastern
N: Tem, Mass, Con, Army, Navy, Lib
S: Mrsh, Chrlt, ECU, Appn, CCU, WF
CUSA (12) - Mid South
E: Mem, ArSt, ULL, ULM, LaTc, Tuln
W: Tuls, UNT, TxSt, Rice, UTSA, UTEP
MAC (12) - Northern
E: Buf, Kent, M-OH, OH, Akrn, BGS
W: Ball, Tol, WMU, EMU, CMU, NIU
MWC (12) - Western
S: Haw, NMS, NM, FrSt, SJS, UNLV
N: Nev, UTSt, AFA, CSU, Wyo, IDSt
Sun Belt (12) - Southeast
E: GaSt, GaSo, Troy, USF, FAU, FIU
W: WKy, USM, USA, UAB, Van, MTS
Pitt, WV, VT, VA, MD and NC schools, along with SC and UCF, are regional rivals that belong in the ACC. Miz, Neb, Col, Hou and SMU belong in the Big12. ND and Cincy belong in the B1G. Boise, BYU and SDS belong in the PAC. FSU, Louisville and GT are better fits in the SEC-E than Miz, SC and Vandy. It appears all realigned conferences, including regional G5, would gain net increases in TV ratings and attendance. Perhaps ESPN could also provide G5 conference TV networks.
There are good reasons smart people chose a Top-4 CFP model. The Top-6 CFP model above supports those same good reasons even better. It enables all 5 P5 conf champs and a G5 conf champ to earn a top-6 ranking. And it inherently encourages teams to enhance their resumés by scheduling good out-of-conf teams.
CFP expansion to 6 teams, benefits/incentives for higher seedings, scheduling criteria, and conference realigment will produce schedules with more competitive games that will improve clarity of the true top 6. The regular season will become a better "de facto playoff" filled with more appealing games that matter. TV ratings and attendance should improve significantly.
How to expand CFP opportunities and get more competitive & appealing regular season games:
FBS CFP - top 6 teams per committee rankings: No auto-bids. Rnd-1: #6@#3, #5@#4, #1/#2 bye. Rnd-2: R1 winners vs #1/#2. Final 1st Sat in Jan.
A top-6 CFP allows all 5 P5 conf champs & a G5 to get in and has key advantages over an 8-team with 6 auto-bids. Auto-bids for P5 conf-champs discourage scheduling good out-of-conf teams. The top-6 model with round-1 byes for #1 & #2 and home-fields for #3 & #4 encourages it -- in order to achieve higher seeding. Also, #8 at #1 and #7 at #2 games would probably be routs. Worst of all, 6 of 8 as auto-bids would result in undeserving multi-loss conf champs getting in over 1-loss non-champs with better resumés.
FBS scheduling criteria - to qualify for the CFP:
• 12 games in Sep-Nov; CCGs 1st Fri-Sat in Dec.
• P5 must schedule 9 in-conf, 1 other P5, 0 FCS.
• G5 must schedule 8 in-conf, 3 to 4 P5s, 0 FCS.
CFP expansion to 6 teams, with the criteria that G5s must schedule 3-4 P5s to qualify, will give G5s a viable means to achieve a top-6 ranking. Since P5s can & will schedule a couple of G5s, good G5s like Memphis, ULL or CCU aspiring to reach the top-6 can find 3-4 good P5s seeking a quality G5 opponent to strengthen their resumé. Teams without CFP expectations don't have to schedule out-of-conf P5s; instead they can aim for bowl eligibility.
Conf realignment to bolster rivalries & balance: 14 teams in each P5 conf & 12 in each G5 conf.
-- P5 conf cross-div: 1 fixed; 6 rotate in 2 slots.
-- G5 conf cross-div: 0 fixed; 6 rotate in 3 slots.
6 G5 (UCF, Cin, Houston, SMU, Boise, SDS) move to P5, likely enabling better hiring and recruiting.
2 small private schools Vandy & Wake go to G5. Conf TV revenue split equally among its teams; Big12 lost Neb, Col, ATM & Miz due to unequal.
Division 1A (FBS P5) = 70 teams:
(moves underlined; cross-div rivals paired)
ACC (14) - Atlantic
N: BC, Syr, Pitt, WVU, VT, VA, MD
S: Mia, DU, NC, NCS, CL, SC, UCF
B1G (14) - Northern
E: UM, MS, Ind, Cin, OSU, PSU, Rtg
W: ND, NW, Pur, Illn, Iowa, Wis, MN
B12 (14) - Central
N: OU, OSt, Neb, Miz, Kan, KSt, ISU
S: Tex, Bay, Col, Hou, SMU, TT, TCU
PAC (14) - Pacific
N: OR, BYU, UT, OS, WA, WS, Boise
S: SC, Ucla, AS, AZ, Stn, Cal, SDSt
SEC (14) - Southeastern
E : TN, GA, FLA, FSU, UK, Lou, GT
W: UA, AU, LSU, aTm, AR, OM, MS
Bama's out-of-conf & cross-div rotations:
9th SEC replaces FCS; 6 SEC-West games
in 2nd half of season; 7 homes & 5 aways.
'22: vs G5, vs P5, vs G5; at UK, vs FS, at TN
'23: vs G5, at P5, vs G5; vs UL, at Ga, vs TN
'24: vs G5, vs P5, vs G5; at GT, vs UF, at TN
'25: vs G5, at P5, vs G5; vs UK, at FS, vs TN
'26: vs G5, vs P5, vs G5; at UL, vs Ga, at TN
'27: vs G5, at P5, vs G5; vs GT, at UF, vs TN
Consistent schedule grids for all conferences (with 1 bye occurring only after game 6 or 7) would simplify in- and out-of-conf scheduling.
Division 1B (FBS G5) = 60 teams:
(moves underlined)
AAC (12) - Eastern
N: Tem, Mass, Con, Army, Navy, Lib
S: Mrsh, Chrlt, ECU, Appn, CCU, WF
CUSA (12) - Mid South
E: Mem, ArSt, ULL, ULM, LaTc, Tuln
W: Tuls, UNT, TxSt, Rice, UTSA, UTEP
MAC (12) - Northern
E: Buf, Kent, M-OH, OH, Akrn, BGS
W: Ball, Tol, WMU, EMU, CMU, NIU
MWC (12) - Western
S: Haw, NMS, NM, FrSt, SJS, UNLV
N: Nev, UTSt, AFA, CSU, Wyo, IDSt
Sun Belt (12) - Southeast
E: GaSt, GaSo, Troy, USF, FAU, FIU
W: WKy, USM, USA, UAB, Van, MTS
Pitt, WV, VT, VA, MD and NC schools, along with SC and UCF, are regional rivals that belong in the ACC. Miz, Neb, Col, Hou and SMU belong in the Big12. ND and Cincy belong in the B1G. Boise, BYU and SDS belong in the PAC. FSU, Louisville and GT are better fits in the SEC-E than Miz, SC and Vandy. It appears all realigned conferences, including regional G5, would gain net increases in TV ratings and attendance. Perhaps ESPN could also provide G5 conference TV networks.
There are good reasons smart people chose a Top-4 CFP model. The Top-6 CFP model above supports those same good reasons even better. It enables all 5 P5 conf champs and a G5 conf champ to earn a top-6 ranking. And it inherently encourages teams to enhance their resumés by scheduling good out-of-conf teams.
CFP expansion to 6 teams, benefits/incentives for higher seedings, scheduling criteria, and conference realigment will produce schedules with more competitive games that will improve clarity of the true top 6. The regular season will become a better "de facto playoff" filled with more appealing games that matter. TV ratings and attendance should improve significantly.
This post was edited on 2/6/21 at 6:32 pm
3
Posted on 1/30/21 at 8:47 pm to TidalSurge1
A 6 team playoff would be the way to go, giving 1 and 2 byes. Agreed, no automatic bids. That realignment would also even the divisions out. It's hard to imagine the PTB going with it, though. I know some of the eastern teams had an agreement not to allow any instate competition. I don't see the SEC kicking out Vanderbilt, either.
This post was edited on 2/1/21 at 1:59 am
Posted on 1/30/21 at 9:06 pm to Snout Spout
I think you meant no automatic bids (not byes). You might be right about Vandy & TPB. But the SEC and ACC really do need to add a 9th in-conf game. And that leaves only 3 out-of-conf games, increasing the need to have in-state rivals in the same conf. Also, those are big money games, so it's better to have that revenue in-conf every year. I think Vandy and Wake could actually be better off in regional G5 conferences where they could consistently win enough to go to bowls and maybe compete for conference titles. The CFP model and conf realignment design is intended (and appears) to financially benefit all of the conferences and teams. So maybe the PTB would cooperatively do it.
This post was edited on 2/1/21 at 7:46 pm
Posted on 1/30/21 at 9:26 pm to TidalSurge1
I hate 6 team playoffs. There would always be arguments that the #2 team wasn't deserving and i honestly don't think it's fair for any teams to have to play an extra game that late in the season. I also believe football should be about these physical and mental grind, so line up a level playing field and make the champ run the gauntlet. If there is a clear cut number one and two they won't have any trouble taking care of number 7 and 8.
I would much rather see eight. Automatic bid the conference champs from the p5 group and do 3 at large bids.
I would much rather see eight. Automatic bid the conference champs from the p5 group and do 3 at large bids.
Posted on 1/30/21 at 9:33 pm to Remiden
I doubt an 8-team CFP with 5-6 automatic bids ever happens. It would result in major negative consequences. It appears you didn't understand what was said about those in my post. Maybe I didn't articulate those clearly enough: P5 teams would only play 8 conf games & 4 rent-a-wins. Also, go take a look at the final CFP rankings for several years and see who your desired 8-team model w/5-6 auto-bids would've put in the CFP.
There are good reasons smart people chose a Top-4 CFP model. The Top-6 CFP model above supports those same good reasons even better. It enables all 5 P5 conf champs and a G5 conf champ to earn a top-6 ranking. And it inherently encourages teams to enhance their resumés by scheduling good out-of-conf teams.
There are good reasons smart people chose a Top-4 CFP model. The Top-6 CFP model above supports those same good reasons even better. It enables all 5 P5 conf champs and a G5 conf champ to earn a top-6 ranking. And it inherently encourages teams to enhance their resumés by scheduling good out-of-conf teams.
This post was edited on 1/31/21 at 1:17 pm
Posted on 2/1/21 at 2:09 am to TidalSurge1
You're right. I meant no automatic bids. As you stated, no automatic bids still allow all P5 champs and the best G5 a playoff berth *if* they are also one of the 6 best teams.
As to the question of 8 v 6, the argument every year always rests on who are the 4th or 5th best teams, who's getting left out? Furthermore, schedules are not equal as they currently exist. It would be ridiculous this year to have forced Alabama to face an extra game when they clearly were the best team and had faced the toughest schedule. Remember, the ultimate goal of this playoff exercise is to determine the #1 best team, not to throw the best team in each league willy nilly into a royal rumble and see who emerges.
As to the question of 8 v 6, the argument every year always rests on who are the 4th or 5th best teams, who's getting left out? Furthermore, schedules are not equal as they currently exist. It would be ridiculous this year to have forced Alabama to face an extra game when they clearly were the best team and had faced the toughest schedule. Remember, the ultimate goal of this playoff exercise is to determine the #1 best team, not to throw the best team in each league willy nilly into a royal rumble and see who emerges.
Posted on 2/1/21 at 12:03 pm to TidalSurge1
quote:
Why/how a 6-team CFP and conf realignment would improve CFB
Not sure why you post these novels about stuff that you know would never happen in 100 years. Just for starters, Notre Dame isn't getting into a conference. Period. End of discussion. This would have been the year they would have done it, and they jumped right back to being independent. No one can or will make them, no matter how much you think it would improve things.
And FSU in the SEC? Have you only been following SEC football, like, for maybe six months? Florida would never allow it, just as Georgia would never allow Georgia Tech to join.
There are lots of things that could happen to improve...defending on your definition of "improve"...sports that would never happen in a thousand years.
I guess you must really enjoy this.
This post was edited on 2/1/21 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 2/1/21 at 1:42 pm to TidalSurge1
I don't care that much about automatic bids as much as I hate the idea that two teams get a bye week. I am old fashioned in that i want the conference championships to mean something. I wouldn't want a system where that didn't matter.
Also assume Texas, Ohio st, Clemson, and Bama run the table and all four are undefeated. Why would it be right for two of those to have to play another game and the other two get a free pass? That would have been Bama and Clemson this year with Ohio St clearly better than Clemson. Honestly just doesn't seem right. And i wouldn't want for Bama to win a championship with other fan bases saying the only reason why we won is that their opponent was tired. Don't let a committee give two teams an advantage based on opinions.
Also, every conference will want representation with 6 or 8. None would ever agree to expanding a playoff where they could get their conference left out.
Also assume Texas, Ohio st, Clemson, and Bama run the table and all four are undefeated. Why would it be right for two of those to have to play another game and the other two get a free pass? That would have been Bama and Clemson this year with Ohio St clearly better than Clemson. Honestly just doesn't seem right. And i wouldn't want for Bama to win a championship with other fan bases saying the only reason why we won is that their opponent was tired. Don't let a committee give two teams an advantage based on opinions.
Also, every conference will want representation with 6 or 8. None would ever agree to expanding a playoff where they could get their conference left out.
Posted on 2/1/21 at 1:47 pm to BamaGradinTn
I used to design marketing and business plans involving multi-company partnerships and lots of agendas & moving parts. Their success depends on market and company realities, good built-in incentives and win-win results. So I have a knack for this sort of stuff. I'm just after some feedback to refine it before providing it to Mark Emmert, conference commissioners and CFB media.
Btw: ND can be persuaded to join the B1G if it's beneficial. A scheduling criteria rule requiring 9 in-conf games to qualify for the CFP would help. Also, UF, UGA & UK resistance to FSU, GT & UL joining the SEC is petty foolishness. They're already playing & recruiting against them. UA & OM aren't against AU & MSU being in the SEC.
Btw: ND can be persuaded to join the B1G if it's beneficial. A scheduling criteria rule requiring 9 in-conf games to qualify for the CFP would help. Also, UF, UGA & UK resistance to FSU, GT & UL joining the SEC is petty foolishness. They're already playing & recruiting against them. UA & OM aren't against AU & MSU being in the SEC.
This post was edited on 2/3/21 at 9:52 am
Posted on 2/1/21 at 1:50 pm to TidalSurge1
Honestly just feels like an avenue for more SEC vs. SEC National Championships
Posted on 2/1/21 at 2:00 pm to Remiden
I get what you're saying, however...
Conference championships do mean something and matter a lot, but do not warrant automatic inclusion in the CFP. Are four undefeated conf champs' resumés all equal? Nah. And the byes for # 1 & #2 and home-fields for #3 & #4 are fair incentives to schedule good out-of-conf teams, to earn higher ranking/seeding. So the byes aren't really a gifted "free pass" as you claim.
It's usually pretty clear which teams deserve to be ranked #1 & #2 based on resumés, and not quite as clear for the #3 & #4 spots. Instead of #5 & #6 feeling jilted outside the final-4, the 6-team CFP model provides them a play-in to the semi-finals, without needless #8@#1 & #7@#2 games. #7 & #8 earn NY6 bowl bids, not a "free pass" into the CFP.
The committee (+ everyone else) felt Clemson's resume was better than OSU's for the #2 ranking. Did you disagree with everyone before OSU beat Clemson? Hind sight is 20/20 -- why they play the games. But you're advocating a CFP system that would discourage scheduling good out-of-conf teams. Conf games and rent-a-wins are all you'd need for an automatic bid.
Yep. Some want a guaranteed bid even if it's not earned or deserved. 9-4 unranked conf champ automatically IN. Ridiculous.
Conference championships do mean something and matter a lot, but do not warrant automatic inclusion in the CFP. Are four undefeated conf champs' resumés all equal? Nah. And the byes for # 1 & #2 and home-fields for #3 & #4 are fair incentives to schedule good out-of-conf teams, to earn higher ranking/seeding. So the byes aren't really a gifted "free pass" as you claim.
It's usually pretty clear which teams deserve to be ranked #1 & #2 based on resumés, and not quite as clear for the #3 & #4 spots. Instead of #5 & #6 feeling jilted outside the final-4, the 6-team CFP model provides them a play-in to the semi-finals, without needless #8@#1 & #7@#2 games. #7 & #8 earn NY6 bowl bids, not a "free pass" into the CFP.
The committee (+ everyone else) felt Clemson's resume was better than OSU's for the #2 ranking. Did you disagree with everyone before OSU beat Clemson? Hind sight is 20/20 -- why they play the games. But you're advocating a CFP system that would discourage scheduling good out-of-conf teams. Conf games and rent-a-wins are all you'd need for an automatic bid.
quote:
Also, every conference will want representation with 6 or 8. None would ever agree to expanding a playoff where they could get their conference left out.
Yep. Some want a guaranteed bid even if it's not earned or deserved. 9-4 unranked conf champ automatically IN. Ridiculous.
This post was edited on 2/1/21 at 11:19 pm
Page 1 of 1
Latest Alabama News
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News