College Football Playoff Board of Managers unanimously approves 5-7 qualifier format

Gamecock72

Joined Sep 24, 2019
Jan 24, 2022
609
502
93
https://www.on3.com/news/college-foo...ail&utm_term=2 024-02-20&utm_campaign=+BREAKING+College+Football+Playof f +approves+new+qualifying+format+for+12-team+playoff

College Football Playoff Board of Managers unanimously approves 5-7 qualifier format
by:Nick Kosko

The College Football Playoff committee unanimously revised the qualifying criteria for the 12-team event Tuesday. The 5+7 format is here.

It’ll be the five highest ranked conference champions plus the next seven highest ranked teams as determined by the CFP committee. It was all made official Tuesday after meetings.

“This is a very logical adjustment for the College Football Playoff based on the evolution of our conference structures since the board first adopted this new format in September 2022,” said Dr. Mark Keenum, President of Mississippi State University and Chair of the CFP Board of Managers. “I know this change will also be well received by student-athletes, coaches and fans. We all will be pleased to see this new format come to life on the field this postseason.”

Under this change, there are modifications from the original 12-team plan. That called for the six highest ranked conference champions, plus the next six highest ranked teams.

But, speculation about the 5+7 format began amid realignment. Now, it’s official.

“Under the 12-team playoff format that begins this fall, the four highest-ranked conference champions will be seeded one through four and each will receive a first-round bye, while teams seeded five through 12 will play each other in the first round on the home field of the higher-ranked team,” the release read.

“(The team ranked #5 will host #12; team #6 will meet team #11; team #7 will play team #10; and team #8 will meet #9.) The quarterfinals and semifinals will be played in the New Year’s Six bowl games, the national championship game will continue to be at a neutral site. No conference will qualify automatically and there will be no limit on the number of participants from a conference.”

Questions surround media rights of College Football Playoff

The meetings come after The Athletic reported last week the College Football Playoff and ESPN had agreed to a six-year deal through 2031 worth roughly $1.3 billion annually. That deal has not been signed, however, and CFP leaders still need to vote on the contract.

Since the news broke, Puck sports business reporter John Ourand reported ESPN executives could pull the offer if the CFP does not move quickly and “doesn’t get its act together.”

Yahoo Sports! also obtained a memo from Mid-American Conference commissioner Jon Steinbrecher, who shared with his member institutions that reports on a new CFP deal were ‘incorrect,'” On3’s Pete Nakos wrote. “A source familiar with the situation told On3 that the email was meant to keep the schools abreast with the situation.”
 

Gamecock72

Joined Sep 24, 2019
Jan 24, 2022
609
502
93
I like the setup but would have made a few changes. I would have put a minimum ranking requirement for the automatic bids, and I would have gone back to using the BCS ranking instead of having a committee rank them.
 

Gamecock72

Joined Sep 24, 2019
Jan 24, 2022
609
502
93
One thing that I really like is that unless Notre Dame joins a conference, they can't get an auto bid or a first-round buy. Even if they are undefeated and ranked number 1.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Blues man

Psycock

Joined Jan 20, 2001
Jan 29, 2022
677
747
93
Sorry but the byes are a joke. Rewards teams with easier schedules, i.e. the ACC, punishes teams with the harder schedules, i.e. SEC, Big 10. They should just go to 16 so they all have to play the same number of games. Why do people think that is fair because it isn`t.
 

Yard_Pimps

Well-known member
Jul 11, 2022
1,050
557
113
Sorry but the byes are a joke. Rewards teams with easier schedules, i.e. the ACC, punishes teams with the harder schedules, i.e. SEC, Big 10. They should just go to 16 so they all have to play the same number of games. Why do people think that is fair because it isn`t.
Sure it is the top 4 played the best and earned the right of a first round bye. Plenty of other sports have them. It also leaves/adds weight back to the regular season
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gamecock72

Blues man

Joined Jul 1, 2009
Jan 22, 2022
1,681
1,666
113
Sure it is the top 4 played the best and earned the right of a first round bye. Plenty of other sports have them. It also leaves/adds weight back to the regular season
Weight of schedule is already rewarded by seeds. That is a big deal not only in your first game but the path to the CG. Not a fan of rewards beyond that when they can be avoided. That said the committee decided not to avoid it. Thing is this is not the first time they have made bone headed decisions and it won't be the last. Now if we could remove ranking ability... I know I'd feel a lot better with a computer ranking than have them deciding who's in... especially those last few spots
 
Last edited:

ToddFlanders

Well-known member
Jan 20, 2022
947
936
93
I like the setup but would have made a few changes. I would have put a minimum ranking requirement for the automatic bids, and I would have gone back to using the BCS ranking instead of having a committee rank them.

They should definitely use BCS rankings instead of the committee. Especially for 12 teams - any little flaw in the system would essentially be moot and you don't have to worry about a committee thinking too much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blues man