Thamel: The lean towards a 12-team playoff

[cymonw1980]

Like the playoff idea, but this may reduce the need to play meaningful non-conference games. The power five will just concentrate on conference games and schedule three easy noncon wins. If it goes that route I would be in favor of eliminating one or two of these meaningless annual games, then scheduling more by weekends, like last year. Probably little need for Iowa and ISU to continue playing and hurting one teams chances for playoffs every year.

I agree with the point on not needing strong non-con games.. I think this is potentially an issue and I would like the committee to make this more of a point of emphasis - basically, make SOS a more valuable component in determining the at large teams to include... current system over values undefeated under values SOS (imo).

In terms of increased games, they should eliminate 1 regular season game. This would make it 11 total games (vs. 12) for the regular season. Max total games would be 16 in this scenario and would only happen when a team that plays in first round (seeds 5-12) make it all the way to the championship game (not often, but possible) and only 2 teams max per year could ever play 16 games. To make up for the loss of one game they should add a +1 for every team not participating in the playoff. These +1 games would match up every team with one other team in the same / similar finish in their respective conference. For example, last place conf A matched up with last place conf B, highest non-playoff conf A, plays highest non-playoff conf B. Every conference would be matched up with as many other conferences as possible each year and the match ups would rotate... for example, year one B12 last place vs. PAC last place, year 2, B12 last place vs. MAC last place... rotate all the way through the G5, P5 conferences.

If we want to keep bowls, teams that "qualify" for bowls would play these games at bowl sites.

Teams that do not qualify for bowls would have these match ups played at schools (rotating home and away just like they rotate conf pairings, year one B12 last place at home, year two B12 last place on the road, etc.).

Each conference should get points for each matchup they win with the bowls matching up top non-playoff teams worth more than the last place matchups. Since there will be an uneven number of teams from each conference playing in the +1 match ups, you would score them based on % of available points earned. For example, if B12 has 2 playoff teams, the 8 non-playoff matchups are worth a total of 20 pts and the conference wins games with a value of 15 pts the conf score would be 0.75. This would be used to seed teams in each group of teams (would not impact if you are a "bye" team, seeds 1-4, or a "home" team, seeds 5-8, or a "road" team, seeds 9-12, just seed you within each of these groups).

This would:

1) Add interest to each bowl game, impacts each conferences "power rating" take advantage of the competition / rivalry that already exists between conferences

2) Limit games played by Playoff teams while keeping every team with at least 12 games

 

[cymonw1980]

I haven't seen anyone mention this but how are we adding more games but not talking about a real effort to pay the players or letting them have a decision about their rights?

I love the idea of expanding the playoff on paper but are these students going to be compensated for more games?

Agree to an extent. I think the conversation is happening though and must go forward. Players need to have the ability to monetize their NIL rights while in college. In addition, for sports like football, they should have lifetime access to medical treatments for injuries. In addition, they should have lifetime access to take classes from the schools they attended in order to allow them to finish degrees later in life.

So, I think the conversation is on going, but needs to move quickly to full implementation, not just conversation or partial implementation on a state by state basis.

 

[CascadeClone]

Like the playoff idea, but this may reduce the need to play meaningful non-conference games. The power five will just concentrate on conference games and schedule three easy noncon wins. If it goes that route I would be in favor of eliminating one or two of these meaningless annual games, then scheduling more by weekends, like last year. Probably little need for Iowa and ISU to continue playing and hurting one teams chances for playoffs every year.

Blun & Stanz podcast covered this. I don't think the Iowa-ISU argument is a big deal - if either team is tough enough to be 8-1 or 9-0 in conference, then 95% of the time they will be tough enough to beat the other.

The bigger issue for me is the SEC 8-game season. Schedule 4 cupcakes, go 6-2 in conference, and you look like 10-2 overall in the SEC and everyone on ESPN says you are awesome and should be in the playoff.

And given the hugely unbalanced scheduling, if you catch two lousy teams from the other division, you might only play 2 ranked teams all year. You could be 10-2 without a win over a ranked team, and half your wins (or more) would be against total bottom feeders.

Meanwhile in the Big12, you are playing at LEAST 3 ranked teams in conference. Time to start scheduling the non-cons Snyder style.

 

[VeloClone]

I haven't seen anyone mention this but how are we adding more games but not talking about a real effort to pay the players or letting them have a decision about their rights?

I love the idea of expanding the playoff on paper but are these students going to be compensated for more games?

You are right. They should probably mirror the compensation that the FCS players get.

 

[nwiacyclonefant]

Liberty beat Coastal last year, so I’m pretty confident we would have took them behind the woodshed. Iowa State was a completely different team than they were against Louisiana and we also had covid issues going into that game.

Where are you in NW Iowa? I go to school up there

LeMars

 

[heitclone]

Here are a few of the numbers I thought were interesting based on who would have made a 12 team playoff the last 7 years based on the current proposal:

- 48% of P5 teams would have made at least one playoff (31 of 64)

- 12% of G5 teams would have mad at least one playoff (8 of 59)

- ND is still the only Independent to make it (got to think BYU, Army, UConn, etc. try to get into a G5 conference to give their football teams a shot at a playoff)
- B12 would have had 5 of 10 teams in the playoff; texas would still not have made it.

- While the SEC has been dominant lately, through the first 3 years (2014 - 2016) the B12 would have had more bids (6) from a 10 team league than the SEC (5 bids) had from a 14 team league

- Overall, the b10 and PAC12 saw biggest boosts, going from 5 bids to 20 bids and 2 bids to 11 bids respectively;

- b10's 20 bids would have been 1 more than the SEC's 19 in the 12 team playoff.

- G5 would have had 8 teams with Coastal Carolina beating out the PAC12 champ for the final spot last season

- Current format no G5 team has ever made it, 4 teams (OU, Clemson, Alabama, OSU) have secured 71% (20 of 28) of the playoff bids the first 7 years

Overall, can't wait for this to happen. I think it adds a lot more value to the regular season since every game is much more likely to impact the playoff race and every team has a legitimate path. Sure, every OU, OSU, Alabama, Clemson, game impacts the playoff today. But what about the others? With this system, many games will have an impact on who will participate, who will get byes, and who will get home games - all very valuable and worth playing for. There is value to be gained at every tier in the playoff, so even more to play for through out the regular season. Lastly, how many players will choose to sit out if they are in a playoff game vs. a bowl game?

What every CFB Playoff would have looked like under the 12-team format

Change is likely coming soon to the CFB Playoff.

247sports.com

(NOTE: Notre Dame was technically an ACC member in 2020)

View attachment 86359

View attachment 86358

Other than a few outliers, these numbers are a direct result of unbalanced scheduling. The b1g and SEC are the leagues with the biggest swings in schedule difficulty, this leads to a lot of pretenders who creep up the rankings. It's mind-blowing that no one in the media understands this, the playoff committee and their "eye test" will only make this point more moot.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Other than a few outliers, these numbers are a direct result of unbalanced scheduling. The b1g and SEC are the leagues with the biggest swings in schedule difficulty, this leads to a lot of pretenders who creep up the rankings. It's mind-blowing that no one in the media understands this, the playoff committee and their "eye test" will only make this point more moot.

The powers that be. know and understands it, that's the way they want it. To them its not good for ratings if Iowa State and Indiana get into the playoff if Alabama and OSU are left at home.

Everyone likes the underdog in the match, but most want to see the power teams play for the championship.

 

[VeloClone]

The powers that be. know and understands it, that's the way they want it. To them its not good for ratings if Iowa State and Indiana get into the playoff if Alabama and OSU are left at home.

Everyone likes the underdog in the match, but most want to see the power teams play for the championship.

I think there are a lot of people who are fed up with seeing the same 4 teams take the vast majority of the playoff spots. A lot of those people would tune in to watch an underdog but maybe aren't tuning in to watch the same tired matchups.

 

[isucy86]

Like the playoff idea, but this may reduce the need to play meaningful non-conference games. The power five will just concentrate on conference games and schedule three easy noncon wins. If it goes that route I would be in favor of eliminating one or two of these meaningless annual games, then scheduling more by weekends, like last year. Probably little need for Iowa and ISU to continue playing and hurting one teams chances for playoffs every year.

IMO there needs to be very clear requirements to be eligible for being playoff eligible.

For P5 programs, to be eligible for playoff, their 12 games should be against 10 P5, 1 G5 & 1 Other.

For G5 teams, to be eligible for playoff, their 12 games should be 1 P5, 10 G5 & 1 Other.

I see no reason why P5 Conference Championship Games should continue. Just a money grab if conferences continue. Conferences need rules prior to season for determining champ based on 12 regular season games.

IMO no committee should be used to pick the 12 teams. Each P5 Champ should get an automatic bid and then next 7 highest ranked teams. Ranking should be based on pre-determined calculation (not polls).

Also the top 4 ranked teams should get bye. The first round games should be at higher ranked team's home. In the 2nd round games should be at neutral site based on top 4 ranked teams conference pre-set location. For example Big12 may be Dallas, SEC in Atlanta, etc. The semifinals would be at historical Bowl sites, same as current process.

 

[heitclone]

The powers that be. know and understands it, that's the way they want it. To them its not good for ratings if Iowa State and Indiana get into the playoff if Alabama and OSU are left at home.

Everyone likes the underdog in the match, but most want to see the power teams play for the championship.

I don't disagree but I think if the powers that be didn't try to control so much of the narrative around who was good and deserves to be in the playoffs, that fans would be more open minded.

 

[cymonw1980]

IMO there needs to be very clear requirements to be eligible for being playoff eligible.

For P5 programs, to be eligible for playoff, their 12 games should be against 10 P5, 1 G5 & 1 Other.

For G5 teams, to be eligible for playoff, their 12 games should be 1 P5, 10 G5 & 1 Other.

I see no reason why P5 Conference Championship Games should continue. Just a money grab if conferences continue. Conferences need rules prior to season for determining champ based on 12 regular season games.

IMO no committee should be used to pick the 12 teams. Each P5 Champ should get an automatic bid and then next 7 highest ranked teams. Ranking should be based on pre-determined calculation (not polls).

Also the top 4 ranked teams should get bye. The first round games should be at higher ranked team's home. In the 2nd round games should be at neutral site based on top 4 ranked teams conference pre-set location. For example Big12 may be Dallas, SEC in Atlanta, etc. The semifinals would be at historical Bowl sites, same as current process.

I am ok with having top 6 conference champs getting bids vs. all 5 P5 conference champs getting in. I like that it accounts for the scenario where you have an unranked P5 team beat a top 10 team in the CCG and get into a 12 team playoff since they are the conference "champion".

Love the idea of forcing specific number of P5 games to be eligible... but don't think that will happen anytime soon.

 

[surly]

I haven't seen anyone mention this but how are we adding more games but not talking about a real effort to pay the players or letting them have a decision about their rights?

I love the idea of expanding the playoff on paper but are these students going to be compensated for more games?

Players are already compensated. You're speaking about more compensation or just compensation or pay-to-play. It seems to me that's an illogical extension of this CFP conversation.

Players receive a stipend already, room, board, tutors, tuition, gear, and so on worth tens of thousands of dollars. It's senseless to your argument to suggest they aren't being "paid" today for their efforts. But it's certainly a stand-alone topic if you want to make the argument.

 

[VeloClone]

Each player can currently receive multiple gift packages totaling up to $1350 per post season game so if they are playing in two additional games (than under the 4 team playoff) under this model they could receive additional value.

 

[DurangoCy]

Here are a few of the numbers I thought were interesting based on who would have made a 12 team playoff the last 7 years based on the current proposal:

- 48% of P5 teams would have made at least one playoff (31 of 64)

- 12% of G5 teams would have mad at least one playoff (8 of 59)

- ND is still the only Independent to make it (got to think BYU, Army, UConn, etc. try to get into a G5 conference to give their football teams a shot at a playoff)
- B12 would have had 5 of 10 teams in the playoff; texas would still not have made it.

- While the SEC has been dominant lately, through the first 3 years (2014 - 2016) the B12 would have had more bids (6) from a 10 team league than the SEC (5 bids) had from a 14 team league

- Overall, the b10 and PAC12 saw biggest boosts, going from 5 bids to 20 bids and 2 bids to 11 bids respectively;

- b10's 20 bids would have been 1 more than the SEC's 19 in the 12 team playoff.

- G5 would have had 8 teams with Coastal Carolina beating out the PAC12 champ for the final spot last season

- Current format no G5 team has ever made it, 4 teams (OU, Clemson, Alabama, OSU) have secured 71% (20 of 28) of the playoff bids the first 7 years

Overall, can't wait for this to happen. I think it adds a lot more value to the regular season since every game is much more likely to impact the playoff race and every team has a legitimate path. Sure, every OU, OSU, Alabama, Clemson, game impacts the playoff today. But what about the others? With this system, many games will have an impact on who will participate, who will get byes, and who will get home games - all very valuable and worth playing for. There is value to be gained at every tier in the playoff, so even more to play for through out the regular season. Lastly, how many players will choose to sit out if they are in a playoff game vs. a bowl game?

What every CFB Playoff would have looked like under the 12-team format

Change is likely coming soon to the CFB Playoff.

247sports.com

(NOTE: Notre Dame was technically an ACC member in 2020)

View attachment 86359

View attachment 86358

Looks like ****** second tier B10 teams would be the winner in all of this, sounds about right.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

I think there are a lot of people who are fed up with seeing the same 4 teams take the vast majority of the playoff spots. A lot of those people would tune in to watch an underdog but maybe aren't tuning in to watch the same tired matchups.

Sure there are, but if you are a football fan, and if you are posting here, you are, you are going to watch no matter who the teams are. Its just like ESPN giving us the Yankees/Red Sox game after game, people stopped watching, but football is different. People watch, but when its your team, you tend to watch with more interest.

 

[madguy30]

IMO there needs to be very clear requirements to be eligible for being playoff eligible.

For P5 programs, to be eligible for playoff, their 12 games should be against 10 P5, 1 G5 & 1 Other.

For G5 teams, to be eligible for playoff, their 12 games should be 1 P5, 10 G5 & 1 Other.

I see no reason why P5 Conference Championship Games should continue. Just a money grab if conferences continue. Conferences need rules prior to season for determining champ based on 12 regular season games.

IMO no committee should be used to pick the 12 teams. Each P5 Champ should get an automatic bid and then next 7 highest ranked teams. Ranking should be based on pre-determined calculation (not polls).

Also the top 4 ranked teams should get bye. The first round games should be at higher ranked team's home. In the 2nd round games should be at neutral site based on top 4 ranked teams conference pre-set location. For example Big12 may be Dallas, SEC in Atlanta, etc. The semifinals would be at historical Bowl sites, same as current process.

Per P5 Conference Championship Games, those will continue to be the money grab. I'd think in order to be successfully get rid of that the conferences would need less teams...I hear 10 is a good number.

 

[VeloClone]

Sure there are, but if you are a football fan, and if you are posting here, you are, you are going to watch no matter who the teams are. Its just like ESPN giving us the Yankees/Red Sox game after game, people stopped watching, but football is different. People watch, but when its your team, you tend to watch with more interest.

To be honest, I have probably missed more playoff games than I have watched in the last few years. I can stomach the same teams again and again only so much.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

To be honest, I have probably missed more playoff games than I have watched in the last few years. I can stomach the same teams again and again only so much.

Could be, but the ratings for the games are still high, and its one of the reasons that the networks are talking about paying billions for more playoff games. Adding more slots will increase viewership, thereby increasing what they can charge for ads to watch the game, it will not matter that in the end, the same 3 or 4 teams win the championship every year.

 

[KidSilverhair]

Per P5 Conference Championship Games, those will continue to be the money grab. I'd think in order to be successfully get rid of that the conferences would need less teams...I hear 10 is a good number.

If they set up the playoff right - and so far, they haven't - then conference championship games would be a de facto first round playoff game. To make that work out, though, you'd have to limit playoff teams to one per conference.

The talk is that conferences are reconsidering the effect of championship games given the expanded playoff, and the use of divisions to set up those championship games. Here's their argument: you have a top-rated team winning one of your divisions, and a weaker team that takes the other. What happens if that weaker team upsets your strong team in the conference championship? You just played an unnecessary game that could cost you a spot in the all-important playoff$! So now some conferences are reconsidering divisions, and thinking about the Big XII model of just matching the two best teams in your championship game.

My son has convinced me this is dumb, under the current playoff scenario. Let's do a thought experiment - you're the Big 10. You have an undefeated Ohio State win the East, with a resurgent Michigan a close second (maybe their only loss is to OSU). In the West, Minnesota wins the division with a 7-5 record or something. If the conference changes their rules to match OSU and Michigan in the championship game, what you're doing is setting up the chance of Michigan getting another loss, and maybe knocking them out of the playoff field. If you stick with your division setup, OSU probably has an easy win over the Gophers, the Wolverines are still 11-1 or whatever, and both teams stroll into the playoffs.

But in my "perfect world" scenario, I'd say only conference champions get a ticket to the playoff. That truly makes conference championship games a first-round playoff game, which would be GREAT, in my opinion.

But I'm not in charge, so ...

 

[isucy86]

Per P5 Conference Championship Games, those will continue to be the money grab. I'd think in order to be successfully get rid of that the conferences would need less teams...I hear 10 is a good number.

I agree, GREED will likely prevail.

It seems like a wasted game. Most seasons each P5 conference's best team during the regular season will be a top 12 team. Would also think at least 3 of 5 conferences second best team would be top 12.

So that leaves 4 spots to be filled by 3rd place teams in P5 conferences, Notre Dame and maybe 1 or 2 G5 teams.

Maybe conferences will re-think the Championship Game after having their best or 2nd best team ranked 8-12 lose in the CCG, thus dropping a team out of the top 12 and a playoff bid.