Sankey on Rethinking CFP after Realignment

[Dawgg]

Article on Sankey pushing to change the 12 team playoff criteria after this last round of consolidation. Keenum makes a cameo.

SEC boss: Must 'rethink' CFP amid realignment

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey says things will continue to change in the college football landscape and that the CFP format should be reconsidered after the latest conference reshuffling.

www.espn.com

Long story short, Sankey believes the consolidation happening in college football means some of the ideas behind the 12 team playoff are no longer viable.

Current plan is 6 highest ranked conference champions plus 6 at large with the 4 highest ranked conference champions getting a first round bye. Sankey said he prefers no championship qualifiers and proposed an 8 team no championship required format. Keenum echoed that and proposed a 12 team no championship required format.

Personally, I like having the championship qualifiers be part of the selection criteria because I still think winning your league should matter, but I think I would be ok if they dropped it to the top 4 conference champions and did 8 at-large and removed the conference championship requirement to make it into one of those top 4 "byes".

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Article on Sankey pushing to change the 12 team playoff criteria after this last round of consolidation. Keenum makes a cameo.

SEC boss: Must 'rethink' CFP amid realignment

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey says things will continue to change in the college football landscape and that the CFP format should be reconsidered after the latest conference reshuffling.

www.espn.com

Long story short, Sankey believes the consolidation happening in college football means some of the ideas behind the 12 team playoff are no longer viable.

Current plan is 6 highest ranked conference champions plus 6 at large with the 4 highest ranked conference champions getting a first round bye. Sankey said he prefers no championship qualifiers and proposed an 8 team no championship required format. Keenum echoed that and proposed a 12 team no championship required format.

Personally, I like having the championship qualifiers be part of the selection criteria because I still think winning your league should matter, but I think I would be ok if they dropped it to the top 4 conference champions and did 8 at-large and removed the conference championship requirement to make it into one of those top 4 "byes".

Any idea if there would be any consistency in how a conference declared a "champion". Seems like that could have some impact. Sounds like we are heading toward conference play basically being a "bracket" in a season long tourney.

 

[Dawgg]

Any idea if there would be any consistency in how a conference declared a "champion". Seems like that could have some impact. Sounds like we are heading toward conference play basically being a "bracket" in a season long tourney.

Well... I started to type out in the original post that I liked including the conference championship qualifier "especially since the Power conferences have started to drop divisions", but then I realized that once conferences get to 18-20 teams, they may have no choice but to bring divisions back. I think the problem with 6 conference champions in a divisional system is let's say UNC had managed to beat Clemson in the ACC title game last season. Well that creates a situation where you could have had Tulane from the AAC and Troy from the Sun Belt get in over the ACC champion. So, then the choice would be putting in a 3 loss team with 1 ranked win or two teams that played Charmin-soft schedules.

I feel like the committee would have come in and made sure they ranked UNC just high enough to beat out two G5 teams, but it's still #20 coming in with a puncher's chance to make it to the National Championship.

I feel like division-less conferences take that piece out of the conversation because you would assume either of the top two teams in the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, or Big 12 would make a viable CFP selection. I think with the Pac-12 folding or merging with MW/AAC, we do need to shrink it down to 4 or 5 champions though or we're probably going to end up with somebody outside the top 25 in the playoff, kind of like how the Big East Champion would end up in a BCS Bowl before they lost their status.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Conference championship should only matter if that conference champion is the SEC. So in other words, it shouldn’t be a criteria.

Even in the B1G, you have these rudy poo teams like Northwestern and others in the title game every year just because of how wildly unbalanced the divisions are. Even when they go division-less, you’ll have over half the league that doesn’t play Ohio State and Michigan both (and several that will play neither), which will yield situations where all a Top 20ish B1G team has to do is go 9-3 or so against a really easy schedule, and score just one upset in the championship to make the CFP. Can’t do that in the SEC because there are too many good teams, but you can easily draw that inside straight in every other league.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

once conferences get to 18-20 teams, they may have no choice but to bring divisions back.

I too think this is inevitable. Long game, I see two scenarios for the Big 4:

1) Due to practicality/geography/etc., you get two 10-team divisions that play a round robin, which the champions meeting in a title game. I don't know if this means 9 games vs. those same teams every year, or add a 10th game with some crossing.
2) They say screw it and go for matchups, and stay at 9 rotating conference games, with 1-2 other out-of-conference P5 games. Championship games, if they keep them, will just be the best 2 records.

I think I prefer #2. I'd like to see conference championship games get eliminated, but I know that's not a popular opinion. But it gives some have-not programs a chance to hang a conference championship banner, if they luck into a good record, which gives hope and helps parity. The more 'things' there are to win, for more teams, the better. Championship games keep the blue bloods at the top, in my opinion, because it's just one more hard game for a have-not to have to win at the end of the year, after injuries have added up, etc.

As far as the playoff, I'd be fine with no conference championship criteria. Just make sure the G5 gets at least one team in the fold.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

As far as the playoff, I'd be fine with no conference championship criteria. Just make sure the G5 gets at least one team in the fold.

Quoting this as reference - but I think of how many overly simple rules could have been implemented throughout the years to preserve the good system we had. For example the BCS, what if there was a simple rule that said two teams from the same conference could not meet again for the title game? It's a NATIONAL title game after all, not round 2 of teams that had already played. That would have eliminated LSU vs. Bama II in 2011, and thus the BCS likely lives on. LSU would have beaten Oklahoma State and all would have been right with the world. We would have preserved the bowls, and mid-level teams would have something to play for year in and year out.

Change is just inevitable I guess. Nothing is or will ever be perfect.

 

[GloryDawg]

They should just use the BCS method to determine rankings and take the top 12 teams.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

They should just use the BCS method to determine rankings and take the top 12 teams.

This brings up another interesting point. Until the committee (or whoever), **CLEARLY** proves that they will value SOS, then most programs and conferences will continue to schedule accordingly, knowing that the only metric that matters is the number of losses you have, no matter how hard your conference or schedule is.

 

[Dawgg]

Conference championship should only matter if that conference champion is the SEC. So in other words, it shouldn’t be a criteria.

Even in the B1G, you have these rudy poo teams like Northwestern and others in the title game every year just because of how wildly unbalanced the divisions are. Even when they go division-less, you’ll have over half the league that doesn’t play Ohio State and Michigan both (and several that will play neither), which will yield situations where all a Top 20ish B1G team has to do is go 9-3 or so against a really easy schedule, and score just one upset in the championship to make the CFP. Can’t do that in the SEC because there are too many good teams, but you can easily draw that inside straight in every other league.

I would tend to agree with you for the Big 12 and maybe the ACC, but not the Big Ten. I feel like they're more than just Ohio State and Michigan. I feel like you could put Wisconsin, Penn State, and maybe Iowa & Michigan State up as national caliber programs most seasons and when USC is added, that will be one more. For that matter, a not very good UCLA in their sissy blue shirts beat a not very good LSU 2 years ago.

I'm looking through the Big Ten standings since divisions were implemented in 2011 and the only times I'm seeing a 2nd place team (in a speculative divisionless system) ranked outside the top 10 the week of the Big Ten CG are:
2011 - Michigan State was 9-3 & #11
2012 - Nebraska was 10-2 & #14

So, assuming those teams upset the first place in team in the Championship game, they could theoretically slip into the top 10, which I think makes a team worthy of the playoff conversation. Also, those were over 10 years ago. The second place team in the Big Ten has been firmly inside the top 10 ever since.

It wasn't that long ago, we were talking about the "SEC Least" sending Missouri to back to back SEC Championship games two years after South Carolina made an appearance. I have as much SEC bias as anybody, but even I wouldn't say there's some giant gulf between the SEC and the Big Ten in terms of depth of program quality.

 

[Dawgg]

It's a NATIONAL title game after all, not round 2 of teams that had already played. That would have eliminated LSU vs. Bama II in 2011, and thus the BCS likely lives on. LSU would have beaten Oklahoma State and all would have been right with the world.

That was the moment the BCS jumped the shark for sure.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

I would tend to agree with you for the Big 12 and maybe the ACC, but not the Big Ten. I feel like they're more than just Ohio State and Michigan. I feel like you could put Wisconsin, Penn State, and maybe Iowa & Michigan State up as national caliber programs most seasons and when USC is added, that will be one more. For that matter, a not very good UCLA in their sissy blue shirts beat a not very good LSU 2 years ago.

I'm looking through the Big Ten standings since divisions were implemented in 2011 and the only times I'm seeing a 2nd place team (in a speculative divisionless system) ranked outside the top 10 the week of the Big Ten CG are:
2011 - Michigan State was 9-3 & #11
2012 - Nebraska was 10-2 & #14

So, assuming those teams upset the first place in team in the Championship game, they could theoretically slip into the top 10, which I think makes a team worthy of the playoff conversation. Also, those were over 10 years ago. The second place team in the Big Ten has been firmly inside the top 10 ever since.

It wasn't that long ago, we were talking about the "SEC Least" sending Missouri to back to back SEC Championship games two years after South Carolina made an appearance. I have as much SEC bias as anybody, but even I wouldn't say there's some giant gulf between the SEC and the Big Ten in terms of depth of program quality.

Speaking of Nebraska.....if I'm them I might jump at the opportunity to be in a division with USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal (if those two happen like many expect), Oregon and Washington. They badly need to open up new recruiting territory as they've been essentially shut out of TX and FL. But I suppose Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa could do the same thing.

Of course I think they fit better in the Big 12 but we all know that's not happening.

Biggest issue with the B1G footprint is recruiting territory in general. You now have SoCal along with Detroit and OH/PA, that's not all that great.

 

[pseudonym]

Screw it. 8-game regular season, 128-team CFP, no auto-bids, no byes.

 

[patdog]

Speaking of Nebraska.....if I'm them I might jump at the opportunity to be in a division with USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal (if those two happen like many expect), Oregon and Washington. They badly need to open up new recruiting territory as they've been essentially shut out of TX and FL. But I suppose Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa could do the same thing.

Of course I think they fit better in the Big 12 but we all know that's not happening.

Biggest issue with the B1G footprint is recruiting territory in general. You now have SoCal along with Detroit and OH/PA, that's not all that great.

I'd be very surprised if divisions come back to either the Big 10 or SEC (or Big 12 for that matter). These conferences are so big that if you split into divisions, you basically have 2 separate conferences. They're going to want the scheduling flexibility and guarantee that you get your best 2 teams in the championship game that come from a permanent/rotating scheduling format.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

I'd be very surprised if divisions come back to either the Big 10 or SEC (or Big 12 for that matter). These conferences are so big that if you split into divisions, you basically have 2 separate conferences. They're going to want the scheduling flexibility and guarantee that you get your best 2 teams in the championship game that come from a permanent/rotating scheduling format.

Another reason that I want to get rid of championship games. I think you'll get a lot of rematches. And further - they don't matter. Teams will already be prepping for the playoffs at that point. Just award conference title banners to the teams with the best records.

I know the games make money. But the expanded playoff will make much more. I'd rather just see another round of playoff games - games that matter - over dumb championship weekend.

 

[Perd Hapley]

I would tend to agree with you for the Big 12 and maybe the ACC, but not the Big Ten. I feel like they're more than just Ohio State and Michigan. I feel like you could put Wisconsin, Penn State, and maybe Iowa & Michigan State up as national caliber programs most seasons and when USC is added, that will be one more. For that matter, a not very good UCLA in their sissy blue shirts beat a not very good LSU 2 years ago.

I'm looking through the Big Ten standings since divisions were implemented in 2011 and the only times I'm seeing a 2nd place team (in a speculative divisionless system) ranked outside the top 10 the week of the Big Ten CG are:
2011 - Michigan State was 9-3 & #11
2012 - Nebraska was 10-2 & #14

So, assuming those teams upset the first place in team in the Championship game, they could theoretically slip into the top 10, which I think makes a team worthy of the playoff conversation. Also, those were over 10 years ago. The second place team in the Big Ten has been firmly inside the top 10 ever since.

It wasn't that long ago, we were talking about the "SEC Least" sending Missouri to back to back SEC Championship games two years after South Carolina made an appearance. I have as much SEC bias as anybody, but even I wouldn't say there's some giant gulf between the SEC and the Big Ten in terms of depth of program quality.

I’m not saying there aren’t ANY other good teams besides OSU and Michigan (with even Michigan just now kind of returning to relevance), but take that list of Wisconsin / Iowa / Penn State / Michigan State and yes I’ll even include USC. How many of those teams would go 8-4 or worse every single year against a 9 game schedule in the SEC? I’m betting almost all of them if not exactly all of them, with only the occasional 9-3 here and there happening if one of them somehow misses at least 75% of Bama, UGA, LSU, Florida, Oklahoma, and whatever other upstart happens to be the flavor of the week that particular year in the SEC (it’s been Auburn, A&M, Tennessee, recently, and can probably add Texas to this rotation soon). Miss 4 or 5 of those teams out of those 6, then maybe they get to 9-3 or something.

But in the B1G, they only need to miss a couple out of 3-4 opponents and and 10-2 / 11-1 is on the table quite easily. Then it’s just win one game to guarantee a spot. For that reason, a conference championship qualifier is just a much bigger advantage for the B1G than it is for the SEC. If anything, make it an automatic qualification if you both win the championship and finish in the Top 8-12 (whatever the final number ends up being) of the CFP rankings. That keeps a weak schedule team from the B1G or any other conference from just being handed a bid.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

Get rid of conference championship games and all bowls outside the playoff, but expand the regular season to 13 (or 14?) games to make up for it.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

However, there's no need to deviate from the 12-team 6/6 format just because the Pac is falling apart.

Adding Cal/Stanford/WSU/OSU to the Mountain West will make that conference strong enough. Like last year for instance Oregon State finished #14 in the final CFP poll, so the only difference in the playoff teams would be Oregon State getting in as the #11 seed instead of Penn State

 

[patdog]

However, there's no need to deviate from the 12-team 6/6 format just because the Pac is falling apart.

Adding Cal/Stanford/WSU/OSU to the Mountain West will make that conference strong enough. Like last year for instance Oregon State finished #14 in the final CFP poll, so the only difference in the playoff teams would be Oregon State getting in as the #11 seed instead of Penn State

Cal & Stanford will never go to the Mountain West. We’ll wind up with no more than 5 auto bids to the playoffs. And probably no requirement that only conference champions can get a bye.

Edit: One report is saying Cal, Stanford and SMU to the ACC is going to happen after all. If I'm Cal and Stanford, I think I'd hold out for the Big 12. By the time they get a full share of revenues, the ACC will be about primed to get gutted of its best schools.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

It won’t be popular but I don’t care. You still keep a committee together like the playoff selection committee to use to fill out the field at the end of the season. There’s some auto bids and then selections by the committee. It would function much like March Madness by having the teams seeded 1-12. Top 4 teams get a bye.


Auto bids:

ACC, Big 12, SEC, and BIG conference championship game winners and highest ranked Group of 5 champion (throw them a bone).

The remain 7 teams are the top 7 in whatever metric used or just selected minus the auto bids of course. Most years the auto bids are going to be teams that would be within the top 12 in the playoff anyway.

Once the field is set they would be seeded by the committee 1-12 with the previously mentioned Top 4 getting the bye.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Cal & Stanford will never go to the Mountain West. We’ll wind up with no more than 5 auto bids to the playoffs. And probably no requirement that only conference champions can get a bye.

Edit: One report is saying Cal, Stanford and SMU to the ACC is going to happen after all. If I'm Cal and Stanford, I think I'd hold out for the Big 12. By the time they get a full share of revenues, the ACC will be about primed to get gutted of its best schools.

You don't think the B1G will eventually let them in? That seems to be the most practical thing to do. I know there's nothing practical about this whole deal, but I just don't see Notre Dame, Miami, or any other ACC team going that route, even in 10 years.

And they bring a major metro area.

 

[Dawgg]

It won’t be popular but I don’t care. You still keep a committee together like the playoff selection committee to use to fill out the field at the end of the season. There’s some auto bids and then selections by the committee. It would function much like March Madness by having the teams seeded 1-12. Top 4 teams get a bye.


Auto bids:

ACC, Big 12, SEC, and BIG conference championship game winners and highest ranked Group of 5 champion (throw them a bone).

The remain 7 teams are the top 7 in whatever metric used or just selected minus the auto bids of course. Most years the auto bids are going to be teams that would be within the top 12 in the playoff anyway.

Once the field is set they would be seeded by the committee 1-12 with the previously mentioned Top 4 getting the bye.

That's pretty close to the 2024 system. The only difference is your scenario 5 auto bids instead of 6 and no championship requirement for the top 4. The 2024 system doesn't spell out which conference champions it will be, but it's going to be a really odd year when the field doesn't include the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, and SEC champion. I think your system works.

 

[Dawgg]

Cal & Stanford will never go to the Mountain West. We’ll wind up with no more than 5 auto bids to the playoffs. And probably no requirement that only conference champions can get a bye.

Edit: One report is saying Cal, Stanford and SMU to the ACC is going to happen after all. If I'm Cal and Stanford, I think I'd hold out for the Big 12. By the time they get a full share of revenues, the ACC will be about primed to get gutted of its best schools.

I think Cal and Stanford think they're a little too good academically for the Big 12. Up until the four corners schools officially join, the Big 12 will have only one AAU school (Kansas) since Iowa State lost their membership. Currently, the ACC has 7 if you include Notre Dame (Georgia Tech, UNC, Pitt, Virginia, Miami, Duke). That's the only rationale I can find for them choosing the ACC over the Big 12.

The only other thing I can think of is that the Big 12 sees the writing on the wall for those two and is not looking to be a rented mule just keeping them in a Power conference until they find a bigger, better deal. The ACC membership may feel like this is all just a temporary situation for everybody so it trades membership in a power conference for financial concessions and keeps FSU, Clemson, NC State, and UNC appeased until the grant of rights is closer to a place where it can be renegotiated or bought out.

 

[Dawgg]

You don't think the B1G will eventually let them in? That seems to be the most practical thing to do. I know there's nothing practical about this whole deal, but I just don't see Notre Dame, Miami, or any other ACC team going that route, even in 10 years.

And they bring a major metro area.

I don't think the Big Ten has an incentive to let them in. They have the 4 most popular teams on the West Coast already. I think they're done adding teams out west.

Notre Dame's willingness to join the Big Ten in ten years will, I think, largely depend on their next contract. If they're getting their $69-70 Million projections for football only, I don't see any reason they would join. If that number is more like $40 Million, the Big Ten could possibly entice them.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

That's pretty close to the 2024 system. The only difference is your scenario 5 auto bids instead of 6 and no championship requirement for the top 4. The 2024 system doesn't spell out which conference champions it will be, but it's going to be a really odd year when the field doesn't include the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, and SEC champion. I think your system works.

When they first came out with the plan I was thinking they said that the conference champ game winner would be top 4 seeds. That’s a little silly. The championship game winner should get a foot in the door, not go to the front of the line.

 

[Dawgg]

When they first came out with the plan I was thinking they said that the conference champ game winner would be top 4 seeds. That’s a little silly. The championship game winner should get a foot in the door, not go to the front of the line.

That's the 2024 plan, yes... top 4 conference champions get the first round bye.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. I was comparing the difference between the 2024 system and your plan.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

If they'd just make the playoff the right percentage of FBS teams, then this wouldn't matter. Every conference could get a champ in, and while it's not fair, hey, we want everybody to have a good time, right? That's what Leach used to say. And conference championship games are fun in basketball and baseball, so why not?

There are 11 conferences in FBS right now, including Independents. PAC is likely going away, Independent doesn't get an auto-berth. So now we're at 9. CUSA likely disbands soon, right? I say expand the playoff to 16, 8 of them are conference champs, the other 8 are at-large. Seed them after selection. You get a bad draw? Who really cares.

I mean it's the same damn number of rounds as the 12-teamer. I go even further, decrease season length to 11, cut out FCS teams. Those games are pitiful anyway and nobody truly pays attention to them.

 

[JoeSchmedlap]

I too think this is inevitable. Long game, I see two scenarios for the Big 4:

1) Due to practicality/geography/etc., you get two 10-team divisions that play a round robin, which the champions meeting in a title game. I don't know if this means 9 games vs. those same teams every year, or add a 10th game with some crossing.
2) They say screw it and go for matchups, and stay at 9 rotating conference games, with 1-2 other out-of-conference P5 games. Championship games, if they keep them, will just be the best 2 records.

I think I prefer #2. I'd like to see conference championship games get eliminated, but I know that's not a popular opinion. But it gives some have-not programs a chance to hang a conference championship banner, if they luck into a good record, which gives hope and helps parity. The more 'things' there are to win, for more teams, the better. Championship games keep the blue bloods at the top, in my opinion, because it's just one more hard game for a have-not to have to win at the end of the year, after injuries have added up, etc.

As far as the playoff, I'd be fine with no conference championship criteria. Just make sure the G5 gets at least one team in the fold.

Why should a G5 team be guaranteed a spot in the playoffs?

 

[Dawgg]

If they'd just make the playoff the right percentage of FBS teams, then this wouldn't matter. Every conference could get a champ in, and while it's not fair, hey, we want everybody to have a good time, right? That's what Leach used to say. And conference championship games are fun in basketball and baseball, so why not?

There are 11 conferences in FBS right now, including Independents. PAC is likely going away, Independent doesn't get an auto-berth. So now we're at 9. CUSA likely disbands soon, right? I say expand the playoff to 16, 8 of them are conference champs, the other 8 are at-large. Seed them after selection. You get a bad draw? Who really cares.

I mean it's the same damn number of rounds as the 12-teamer. I go even further, decrease season length to 11, cut out FCS teams. Those games are pitiful anyway and nobody truly pays attention to them.

CUSA is a cockroach. The entire FBS could disband and they’ll just pick-up 4 teams from the Patriot League or Southland and find some way to survive.

The Big East couldn’t kill them.
The Mountain West couldn’t kill them.
The American couldn’t kill them.
The Sun Belt couldn’t kill them.

Right now, they’re looking at the Pac-12 like:

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Why should a G5 team be guaranteed a spot in the playoffs?

So everybody has a good time. It ain’t never been fair

But if you don’t provide hope, you’ll lose the lesser schools/conferences, and we will start headed toward the elite league, which nobody wants

 

[QuaoarsKing]

Why should a G5 team be guaranteed a spot in the playoffs?

FBS football is the only NCAA sport that doesn't give autobids to the championship bracket for every conference.