Five questions for the CFP committee

[pseudonym]

College Football Playoff: Five questions for the committee

Strength of schedule, ranking the G5 and SEC/Big Ten dominance are among the most pressing queries.

www.espn.com

I think the first year of the 12-team playoff will be fascinating. I also think a lot of people are in for a surprise because they think they know how the committee will evaluate teams, but they don't. They can't. Not only will 2024 be the first year of the 12-team CFP, it will be the first year of major conference realignment. That's why I think looking at past CFP rankings and trying to map that to 2024 doesn't tell us as much as people think.

 

[BulldogBlitz]

One of the questions has to be "what is the airspeed velocity of unladen swallow?"

 

[Howiefeltersnstch]

40 to 60 kilometers an hour

 

[CochiseCowbell]

One of the questions has to be "what is the airspeed velocity of unladen swallow?"

African or European Swallow?

 

[OG Goat Holder]

It'll be just like any other college tournament, in this modern era of consolidation of power. The SEC/B1G will get slighted by a small percentage in order to give some welfare to the others. But the final 4 or so will be all SEC/B1G. The biggest problem is going to be who gets to play G5 (I'm not talking ACC/Big 12, I'm talking true G5) teams in the first round, if they make it. Those games are layups for a P5 team at home.

That's why I wish we'd just go to 16. Let the top 4 seeds host a G5 team at home. 12 P4 spots, 4 G5. And obviously you can have some caveats in there that says if a G5 team finishes Top 4, then they get a bye and then they only get 3 others in. And also that the G5 teams must finish Top 25 or be a conference champ, something like that, and if they don't, they lose that spot to another P4 team. This gives the Top 4 P4 teams an advantage, but also throws a bone to the G5. Also, you don't have to add a weekend.

But either way, I do think this brings back some interest to college football. And honestly, I'm looking forward to it in general - just not MSU football.

 

[pseudonym]

That's why I wish we'd just go to 16. Let the top 4 seeds host a G5 team at home. 12 P4 spots, 4 G5. And obviously you can have some caveats in there that says if a G5 team finishes Top 4, then they get a bye and then they only get 3 others in. And also that the G5 teams must finish Top 25 or be a conference champ, something like that, and if they don't, they lose that spot to another P4 team. This gives the Top 4 P4 teams an advantage, but also throws a bone to the G5. Also, you don't have to add a weekend.

I agree that it should move to 16, and I think the chaos in these first few years will bring that about sooner than people think.

But what you propose seems complicated. Would the total number of teams change if a G5 team is in the top four? Why not just go 16 teams, 5 champs, 11 at-large?

Also, if they gave four spots to the G5, we should try to get into CUSA (kidding).

 

[patdog]

It'll be just like any other college tournament, in this modern era of consolidation of power. The SEC/B1G will get slighted by a small percentage in order to give some welfare to the others. But the final 4 or so will be all SEC/B1G. The biggest problem is going to be who gets to play G5 (I'm not talking ACC/Big 12, I'm talking true G5) teams in the first round, if they make it. Those games are layups for a P5 team at home.

That's why I wish we'd just go to 16. Let the top 4 seeds host a G5 team at home. 12 P4 spots, 4 G5. And obviously you can have some caveats in there that says if a G5 team finishes Top 4, then they get a bye and then they only get 3 others in. And also that the G5 teams must finish Top 25 or be a conference champ, something like that, and if they don't, they lose that spot to another P4 team. This gives the Top 4 P4 teams an advantage, but also throws a bone to the G5. Also, you don't have to add a weekend.

But either way, I do think this brings back some interest to college football. And honestly, I'm looking forward to it in general - just not MSU football.

Definitely need to be either 8 or 16. 12 sucks. Ridiculous that top 4 seeds don’t get a home game.

all the hand wringing about a cold weather game up north is overblown. NFL makes it work in much more brutal late January weather. mid December won’t be a big deal at all.

And strength if schedules won’t really change much. No matter how big the SEC & Big 10 grow, they’re still only playing 8-9 conference games.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

But what you propose seems complicated. Would the total number of teams change if a G5 team is in the top four? Why not just go 16 teams, 5 champs, 11 at-large?

Because being a conference champ should not matter anymore, at least at the P4 level. It's antiquated thinking. All conferences are not created equal, there are too many elite teams within the SEC alone.

The caveat for the G5 is mainly so we don't have like an 8-4 conference champ like Western Kentucky make it in the tournament. Conference championship games for those conferences could still be really cool. After they are done, take the Top G5 conference champs that are in the Top 25, and rate them. Top 4 get in and play the Top 4 P4 seeds. UNLESS they make it into the Top 4 or 12, then they get seeded there, and that backend spot gets taken by the next rated team (probably a P4 team).

 

[HuntDawg]

Because being a conference champ should not matter anymore, at least at the P4 level. It's antiquated thinking. All conferences are not created equal, there are too many elite teams within the SEC alone.

The caveat for the G5 is mainly so we don't have like an 8-4 conference champ like Western Kentucky make it in the tournament. Conference championship games for those conferences could still be really cool. After they are done, take the Top G5 conference champs that are in the Top 25, and rate them. Top 4 get in and play the Top 4 P4 seeds. UNLESS they make it into the Top 4 or 12, then they get seeded there, and that backend spot gets taken by the next rated team (probably a P4 team).

Way too many ifs and buts.

12 is fine. I think any top 4 team would prefer the week off than risking injury, targeting suspension, amongst other things than a home game against western Kentucky anyway, where Georgia rolls 56-7.

if it provens to need to be expanded more we will see in the coming years. Jumping from 4 to 16 is way too much.. more years than not there wnt be 12 worthy teams let alone 16.

 

[85Bears]

Weather should never be an issue in football. Snow, ice , wind and rain is part of football.

 

[MStateDawg]

I think the first year of the 12-team playoff will be fascinating.

It may well be the first and last year of the 12-team playoff. They've already started discussions about going to 14 or 16 teams no later than 2026 and possibly as early as next year. There's just too much money on the table not to allow a few extra teams, especially with the recent NCAA lawsuit settlement that's gonna cost all NCAA schools a chunk of money.

 

[patdog]

Way too many ifs and buts.

12 is fine. I think any top 4 team would prefer the week off than risking injury, targeting suspension, amongst other things than a home game against western Kentucky anyway, where Georgia rolls 56-7.

if it provens to need to be expanded more we will see in the coming years. Jumping from 4 to 16 is way too much.. more years than not there wnt be 12 worthy teams let alone 16.

For the extra check they’ll get, I bet they’d be more than happy to play a round of 16 game at home. I rather have 8 team playoff. But that’s not gonna happen, so 16 is next best option.

 

[HuntDawg]

For the extra check they’ll get, I bet they’d be more than happy to play a round of 16 game at home. I rather have 8 team playoff. But that’s not gonna happen, so 16 is next best option.

Check will get cut 100 different ways…. Plus a school like Georgia knows the biggest piece of the pie is the end piece.. they arent worried about the appetizers prior to it.

im not disagreeing that 8 or 16 isn’t eventually the right number… but for now jumping from 4 to 16 is a reach. I think a smaller step to gauge the interest and results and all those things is the right way to go.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

im not disagreeing that 8 or 16 isn’t eventually the right number… but for now jumping from 4 to 16 is a reach. I think a smaller step to gauge the interest and results and all those things is the right way to go.

You're right....you're not disagreeing....you're arguing for the sake of arguing and because you have an old school mindset that you can't change.

4 to 16 is nothing. We just saw the biggest change in collegiate sports happen in 2021, so this fits right along. And as far as percentage of teams and size of the playoff, even with 16 we are WELL behind FCS, D1, D2, D3 and NAIA football, much less basketball and baseball.

Your point has no merit, boomer.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

The eight teams that participated in the College World Series are a good indicator of who will be involved in the first 12-team playoff.

 

[HuntDawg]

You're right....you're not disagreeing....you're arguing for the sake of arguing and because you have an old school mindset that you can't change.

4 to 16 is nothing. We just saw the biggest change in collegiate sports happen in 2021, so this fits right along. And as far as percentage of teams and size of the playoff, even with 16 we are WELL behind FCS, D1, D2, D3 and NAIA football, much less basketball and baseball.

Your point has no merit, boomer.

Your saying I have an old school mind set? hello black kettle….

percentage of teams matters none. when baseball changed it went from 48 to 64. Roughly 25% expansion. When basketball changed it went from 32 to 64, 100% expansion, followed by 4 more Years later.

football in one season your wanting to expand 4xs what was.

what other places did or have or can run doesn’t matter. I’m sure given time this can expand as much as needed and wanted. But expansion causes issues, and you don’t know those issues until you expand. Hence why no league ever expands this much this quickly..and you want it to be bigger, quicker?

again thank you again for proving the point, whatever side of an issue you are on… the other side is typically the right one...sleepy joe

 

[pseudonym]

Because being a conference champ should not matter anymore, at least at the P4 level. It's antiquated thinking. All conferences are not created equal, there are too many elite teams within the SEC alone.

The caveat for the G5 is mainly so we don't have like an 8-4 conference champ like Western Kentucky make it in the tournament. Conference championship games for those conferences could still be really cool. After they are done, take the Top G5 conference champs that are in the Top 25, and rate them. Top 4 get in and play the Top 4 P4 seeds. UNLESS they make it into the Top 4 or 12, then they get seeded there, and that backend spot gets taken by the next rated team (probably a P4 team).

The 5 + x model works because it will almost always result in champs from the P4 + one G5 champ, which gives every team outside of independents a reasonable path to an auto bid.

It also creates the potential for drama. Imagine 11-1 Kansas playing 9-3 Kansas State in the Big 12 championship game. Do you think the fans of 10-2 SEC teams might tune in and cheer for the Jayhawks?

But if I didn't do 5 + 11, I would just go straight to the top 16 with no stipulations.

 

[GloryDawg]

I really believe schedule is going to affect the decision on who gets in. This is going to hurt ole miss next season.

 

[patdog]

I really believe schedule is going to affect the decision on who gets in. This is going to hurt ole miss next season.

A 10-win SEC team will not be left out of playoffs. Their SOS isn’t that bad.

 

[GloryDawg]

A 10-win SEC team will not be left out of playoffs. Their SOS isn’t that bad.

As big as the conferences are now there will be many 10-win teams from each conference. The way the SEC is schedule there could be five to six 10-win teams. Somebody is going to be left out. It will come down to schedule and tie breakers who beat who and who played who. Theres three 16 team conferences and one with 17 teams. There is one spot for a non p4 and then you got ND sitting out there. I could be very wrong but the old way of thinking four team playoff and NY6 bowl game way of thinking is going to change.

 

[patdog]

As big as the conferences are now there will be many 10-win teams from each conference. The way the SEC is schedule there could be five to six 10-win teams. Somebody is going to be left out. It will come down to schedule and tie breakers who beat who and who played who. Theres three 16 team conferences and one with 17 teams. There is one spot for a non p4 and then you got ND sitting out there. I could be very wrong but the old way of thinking four team playoff and NY6 bowl game way of thinking is going to change.

There were 12 teams with 10 wins in both 23 & 22. With conference consolidation, that number won’t change much. If anything, it will go down instead of up. So yeah, good chance a 10-win team gets left out to make room for the G5 team. But it won’t be the SEC team.

 

[pseudonym]

A 10-win SEC team will not be left out of playoffs.

Are you basing that on past seasons?

Significant changes to 2024:

1. Adding Texas and Oklahoma
2. Top teams not playing each other because of the 8-game schedule (more teams, same number of SEC games)

Old paradigm: Fewer 10+ win SEC teams with more or less comparable SOS. A 10-2 SEC team is a top 12 if not a top 10 team.

New paradigm (my prediction): More 10+ win SEC teams with more SOS variance. A 10-2 SEC may or may not be included in a 12-team playoff. It will come down to impressive wins and head-to-head.

Look at Missouri's schedule compared to Georgia's schedule. Georgia is in at 10-2. I'm not sure a 10-2 Missouri is in.

The conventional wisdom is the SEC adding Texas and Oklahoma only makes the case for a 10-2 SEC stronger. But because the conference got bigger and the number of SEC games stayed the same, not every team's SOS got better. Look at Ole Miss: added a home game against Oklahoma but doesn't play Alabama. Did their SOS magically get better with the SEC expansion?

 

[patdog]

Are you basing that on past seasons?

Significant changes to 2024:

1. Adding Texas and Oklahoma
2. Top teams not playing each other because of the 8-game schedule (more teams, same number of SEC games)

Old paradigm: Fewer 10+ win SEC teams with more or less comparable SOS. A 10-2 SEC team is a top 12 if not a top 10 team.

New paradigm (my prediction): More 10+ win SEC teams with more SOS variance. A 10-2 SEC may or may not be included in a 12-team playoff. It will come down to impressive wins and head-to-head.

Look at Missouri's schedule compared to Georgia's schedule. Georgia is in at 10-2. I'm not sure a 10-2 Missouri is in.

The conventional wisdom is the SEC adding Texas and Oklahoma only makes the case for a 10-2 SEC stronger. But because the conference got bigger and the number of SEC games stayed the same, not every team's SOS got better. Look at Ole Miss: added a home game against Oklahoma but doesn't play Alabama. Did their SOS magically get better with the SEC expansion?

You just brought in 2 of the top football programs in NCAA history. On average, strength of schedule will get tougher, not weaker. Instead of playing 2 or 3 of the weaker teams in the conference, you’ll only play 1 or 2. A 10-win Missouri team last year may only have 9 wins this year.

 

[Dawgbite]

African or European Swallow?

Neither, sororitute!

 

[pseudonym]

You just brought in 2 of the top football programs in NCAA history. On average, strength of schedule will get tougher, not weaker. Instead of playing 2 or 3 of the weaker teams in the conference, you’ll only play 1 or 2. A 10-win Missouri team last year may only have 9 wins this year.

You're right that the conference's overall SOS gets better. My point is that this isn't necessarily the case for individual teams. Ole Miss ended up with the third-best SOS in the country last year. Their schedule is much easier this year, even with SEC expansion.

 

[patdog]

You're right that the conference's overall SOS gets better. My point is that this isn't necessarily the case for individual teams. Ole Miss ended up with the third-best SOS in the country last year. Their schedule is much easier this year, even with SEC expansion.

No question, their schedule got easier. It’s still plenty tough nationally though. With new 5+7 format, we’re gonna see 4-5 SEC teams in most every year. I’ll be shocked if Mississippi gets left out with 10 wins (or gets in with 9).

 

[pseudonym]

Here's how I see it shaking out (in no particular order):

1. SEC champ
2. Big Ten champ
3. ACC champ
4. Big 12 champ
5. G5 champ
6. Notre Dame
7. SEC at-large
8. SEC at-large
9. Big Ten at-large
10. Big Ten at-large
11. ?
12. ?

SEC teams I see competing for 3-5 spots (in no particular order):

1. Georgia
2. Texas
3. Alabama
4. Missouri
5. Tennessee
6. Oklahoma
7. LSU
8. Texas A&M
9. Ole Miss

 

[patdog]

Here's how I see it shaking out (in no particular order):

1. SEC champ
2. Big Ten champ
3. ACC champ
4. Big 12 champ
5. G5 champ
6. Notre Dame
7. SEC at-large
8. SEC at-large
9. Big Ten at-large
10. Big Ten at-large
11. ?
12. ?

SEC teams I see competing for 3-5 spots (in no particular order):

1. Georgia
2. Texas
3. Alabama
4. Missouri
5. Tennessee
6. Oklahoma
7. LSU
8. Texas A&M
9. Ole Miss

At least 1 of the 2 ? will be an SEC team. Decent chance both will be. Agree on the 9, but several of them (3 - 5) will wind up with less than 10 wins.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Here's how I see it shaking out (in no particular order):

1. SEC champ
2. Big Ten champ
3. ACC champ
4. Big 12 champ
5. G5 champ
6. Notre Dame
7. SEC at-large
8. SEC at-large
9. Big Ten at-large
10. Big Ten at-large
11. ?
12. ?

SEC teams I see competing for 3-5 spots (in no particular order):

1. Georgia
2. Texas
3. Alabama
4. Missouri
5. Tennessee
6. Oklahoma
7. LSU
8. Texas A&M
9. Ole Miss

This is why auto-berths for conference champs are dumb. Conferences are not created equally.

The SEC deserves a bigger share, but they won’t get it for a while. Somebody will get screwed.

 

[leeinator]

Ok....I believe in taking the committee OUT of the decision making process. Here's what I propose.........

The top ranked 16 teams should make up the playoff.

A computer formula with a number of predetermined inputs will determine the top 16 teams.

The inputs will be weighted by the committee along with advice from the Head Coaches.

While the committee will not decide who the teams are by simple voting.....they will help with what the inputs and their weighting in the formula shall be.

The formula, the inputs, and their weighting will be determined by the committee and the D1 Head Coaches.

Once the inputs and formula are finalized for that particular year, they will have to be agreed upon by all the coaches and signed off on.

The formula and inputs cannot be changed after August 1st of each year. If a change to the inputs is needed, it will have to wait until the following year to add, delete, or change.

One formula number will rank the top 16 teams.

No byes and it will be a simple tourney format....as #1 will play #16,......... so on and so forth.

No games will be played on the home campus stadium of any ranked team. The existing bowl system can easily handle all the games. Other stadiums not affiliated with the bowl system can be used if needed. (ex: see downtown stadium in St. Louis, etc).

That's pretty much it.....I just don't like a smoke filled dark back room full of ex coaches, university Presidents, former ADs voting on who they think should be in. Yes, they are involved in the mechanics of the formula, but their personalities and perceived favorites won't be deciding who's in or out. Transparency of the formula and it's inputs/weighting will be known by everyone by Aug. 1st....fans, coaching staffs and everyone in between.

 

[patdog]

This is why auto-berths for conference champs are dumb. Conferences are not created equally.

The SEC deserves a bigger share, but they won’t get it for a while. Somebody will get screwed.

SEC will get 4 teams in every year and 5 probably about half the time. That’s not too bad.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

Ok....I believe in taking the committee OUT of the decision making process. Here's what I propose.........

The top ranked 16 teams should make up the playoff.

A computer formula with a number of predetermined inputs will determine the top 16 teams.

The inputs will be weighted by the committee along with advice from the Head Coaches.

While the committee will not decide who the teams are by simple voting.....they will help with what the inputs and their weighting in the formula shall be.

The formula, the inputs, and their weighting will be determined by the committee and the D1 Head Coaches.

Once the inputs and formula are finalized for that particular year, they will have to be agreed upon by all the coaches and signed off on.

The formula and inputs cannot be changed after August 1st of each year. If a change to the inputs is needed, it will have to wait until the following year to add, delete, or change.

One formula number will rank the top 16 teams.

No byes and it will be a simple tourney format....as #1 will play #16,......... so on and so forth.

No games will be played on the home campus stadium of any ranked team. The existing bowl system can easily handle all the games. Other stadiums not affiliated with the bowl system can be used if needed. (ex: see downtown stadium in St. Louis, etc).

That's pretty much it.....I just don't like a smoke filled dark back room full of ex coaches, university Presidents, former ADs voting on who they think should be in. Yes, they are involved in the mechanics of the formula, but their personalities and perceived favorites won't be deciding who's in or out. Transparency of the formula and it's inputs/weighting will be known by everyone by Aug. 1st....fans, coaching staffs and everyone in between.

The bold is where you lose me. Neutral site games and bowls are so dull, and teams need an incentive to try to get their ranking as high as possible, not merely trying to be in the top 16.

 

[patdog]

The bold is where you lose me. Neutral site games and bowls are so dull, and teams need an incentive to try to get their ranking as high as possible, not merely trying to be in the top 16.

Only the championship game should be at a neutral site. All other rounds at the home of the higher seed.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

All the hurdles have been cleared to have a winners and losers share for each of these games.

 

[leeinator]

LOnly the championship game should be at a neutral site. All other rounds atS

Only the championship game should be at a neutral site. All other rounds at the home of the higher seed.

Then if MSU or other small-market team happens to squeak into the lower part of the playoffs, prepare to travel to Tuscaloosa, Athens, Austin, Columbus, Norman, etc. And of course we all know the refs will not be intimidated by the 100K+ home campus crowd. Yeah right, I've seen that movie plenty over the years. MSU might as well bend over and grab their ankles when they get off the bus. Go ahead and take a big fat "L" then limp back to Starkvegas with our tails between our legs.

 

[pseudonym]

At least 1 of the 2 ? will be an SEC team. Decent chance both will be. Agree on the 9, but several of them (3 - 5) will wind up with less than 10 wins.

Agree that four SEC teams will be typical. I give the 3-5 range to account for bid stealers and the occasional year with five SEC teams.

 

[pseudonym]

Only the championship game should be at a neutral site. All other rounds at the home of the higher seed.

This works for the NFL. I generally like the idea of on-campus CFP games.

However, a key difference between the NFL and college is NFL home field is determined objectively according to wins and losses. Home field in college will be determined subjectively by committee, which isn’t ideal.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

This works for the NFL. I generally like the idea of on-campus CFP games.

However, a key difference between the NFL and college is NFL home field is determined objectively according to wins and losses. Home field in college will be determined subjectively by committee, which isn’t ideal.

I would support abolishing the selection committee and using an objective measure to choose the playoff teams.

 

[patdog]

I would support abolishing the selection committee and using an objective measure to choose the playoff teams.

The “objective” measures aren’t any
better. Do we really want RPI to determine who makes the playoffs?

 

[QuaoarsKing]

The “objective” measures aren’t any
better. Do we really want RPI to determine who makes the playoffs?

Maybe not RPI per se, but something that does a good job of ranking the teams with high statistical validity, sure.