Article CFP unanimously approves 5+7 model for new 12-team playoff

[Vespidae]

Viewership is a proxy for money. Again, about 40% of the SECheat/B1G are between 1-2.5 million viewers - about where the great unwashed reside. This is about the elite being feted by sEcSPN so both can benefit greatly. No more, no less.

The 5+7 is the same. Does anyone even try to make a cogent argument that the new format will unevenly empower the SECheat and B1G?

There is no question that the system will ultimately be redesigned to maximize money.

The university programs did it to themselves by ceding control to broadcasters. I don't see any of them giving the money back.

 

[stinger78]

There is no question that the system will ultimately be redesigned to maximize money.

The university programs did it to themselves by ceding control to broadcasters. I don't see any of them giving the money back.

This we agree on totally. No, the broadcasters won’t give it back, but the canon fodder can leave them if their fans are resolute about it and stop repeating their Narrative.

 

[CEB]

Root, as pointed out the pre-season polls are so biased towards 2 conferences that it’s basically an impossibility for other conferences to have 2 top 10 teams at the end. Now with the top 12 mattering, it’s even less than a possibility. Your historical analysis is a result of the pre-season polls keeping some teams with 3 losses still ranked while pushing other teams with 1 loss out of the top 20. It’s all rigged. If they would rank FSU and Clemson pre-season #1 and #2 then the ACC would have great chance at 2 teams getting in. But since they will be ranked in the 16-20 range, there is no chance. UGA knows they are getting in the playoff because they‘ll be ranked 1 or 2 to begin and even with a couple losses they’ll be in the top 12. If they started at 16 (like FSU) and had 2 losses they wouldn’t (unless they get the auto).

The argument that “historically” the conference bias has kept 3-loss BIG / SEC teams ahead of 1-2 loss P5 made me take a quick look at CFP historic standings. I think it actually contradicts that assertion. A few 3 loss teams have snuck into the top ten but in those cases, the two loss teams behind them don’t support the bias you’re looking for…

2023 - no 3-loss team in top 10 and no 3-loss team over a 2-loss P5 team

2022- Two 3-loss teams snuck into the top 10 over 2-loss teams. Utah and KSt were ranked above 2-loss USC, Penn St and Washington. (Big Ten snub?)

2021 - no 3-loss top ten team

2020 - Florida and Iowa State snuck into top 10 with 3 losses in a screwed up partial season due to Covid. Not much to take from this year.

2019- Wisconsin snuck in at 10-3. The two loss teams behind them? Florida, Penn St, Utah, Bama and ND.

2018 - Washington and Florida were 3 loss teams. The only P5 team with 2 losses that fell behind them was Wash St.

2017 - 3 loss Auburn was #7. There were two loss USC, Penn St and Miami behind them at 8,9 and 10. The top ten “snubs” were 10-2 Washington at 11 and 12-0 UCF at 12.

2016 - three 3-loss teams at 8,9, and 10, led by Wisconsin ( Badgers seem to be the 3-loss darling of this analysis). Only P5 team with two losses behind them was WVU way back at 16.

2015 - no 3-loss top ten team

2014 - three loss teams in order #9 thru #18….. Ole Miss was #9 followed by Ariz, KSt, GT (biggest snub ever), uga, ucla, Ariz St, Mizzou, Clem, Wisconsin. No 2-loss P5 fell behind them.

I think you can make a solid argument that BIG / SEC teams have gotten the nod when losses are the SAME, but there isn’t much evidence to support 3 loss BIG/SEC teams being favored in the way you state. The good news for your theory is that if it does indeed start to happen, you can pretty clearly assert that they show bias NOW that top ten seeding really matters.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Forensic, you do you and I’ll do me. To come on a message board and give someone a tongue lashing I’ll just never understand. This is all in fun. We aren’t solving anything here. I have never ignored nor will I ever ignore anyone because I love everyone’s opinions. None of us are wrong. We are 372 pages in. Are you telling me every post is “sharing something new”?

Listen, I hope you are right that the SEC and BIG and the CFP want equal treatment for all leagues and all teams. I also hope you are right that Jim Phillips has an incredible plan to make the ACC a premier conference that high level football and basketball players want to play in.

But, the simple facts are the ACC has not had a team in the past 2 post season tournaments in D1 football. The field has now tripled so let’s see what ACTUALLY happens instead of doing mental gymnastics to what could have happened.

I DM'd you.

 

[Root4GT]

Root, as pointed out the pre-season polls are so biased towards 2 conferences that it’s basically an impossibility for other conferences to have 2 top 10 teams at the end. Now with the top 12 mattering, it’s even less than a possibility. Your historical analysis is a result of the pre-season polls keeping some teams with 3 losses still ranked while pushing other teams with 1 loss out of the top 20. It’s all rigged. If they would rank FSU and Clemson pre-season #1 and #2 then the ACC would have great chance at 2 teams getting in. But since they will be ranked in the 16-20 range, there is no chance. UGA knows they are getting in the playoff because they‘ll be ranked 1 or 2 to begin and even with a couple losses they’ll be in the top 12. If they started at 16 (like FSU) and had 2 losses they wouldn’t (unless they get the auto).

During Clemson’s run of making the CFP they were a preseason top team for several years. They totally dominated the ACC. There was no second team to be rated top 10. Miami was once but they were a pretender and lost 5 or 6 games that year.

Do you really think last year the ACC had a second team that deserved to be in the top 10?

My bigger issue is with the computer programs that so many say would be better. They are more biased than the polls in most cases.

NET in BB is a good indicator of why computer models are not good and the football ones are far worse due to fewer games

 

[CEB]

During Clemson’s run of making the CFP they were a preseason top team for several years. They totally dominated the ACC. There was no second team to be rated top 10. Miami was once but they were a pretender and lost 5 or 6 games that year.

Do you really think last year the ACC had a second team that deserved to be in the top 10?

My bigger issue is with the computer programs that so many say would be better. They are more biased than the polls in most cases.

NET in BB is a good indicator of why computer models are not good and the football ones are far worse due to fewer games

That was key, in my opinion. The SEC and BIG were able to distinguish themselves by their 2nd and 3rd teams.
It was Florida / Bama then it was Bama / LSU, then it was UGA / Bama. Sprinkle in LSU, Ol Miss and Auburn having a big season and it elevated perception the entire conference.

Similarly, the BIG has OSU forever and a steady rotation of MICH, Penn St, MSU, Wiscy to challenge them.

When that number 2 team runs the table and challenges the #1, it does wonders for perception.

Even the lame duck PAC pulled it off this year with Wash & Oregon.

The ACC hasn’t had a strong 1 / 2 punch like that for a long, long time. It was FSU alone forever, then Clemson alone.
When there has been opportunity for a strong 2, it proceeds to drop head scratchers to the bottom of the conference or worse yet, out of conference. Seems like VT elevated that to an art form for a while… losIng to ODU or ECU or somebody and then running through the ACC schedule. We Had a shot at it this year with potential strong looking undefeated teams meeting up and FSU loses Travis to injury and Lville sucks up the joint vs a middling UK team. Opportunity missed.

I’d like to see Clemson come back and FSU sustain… maybe sprinkle in a 10 win season out of GT or Miami or UNC. Hate to say but our Thanksgiving weekend results will go a long way toward perceptions… we CAN control some of this narrative. Unfortunately we have been feeding it.

 

[stinger78]

That was key, in my opinion. The SEC and BIG were able to distinguish themselves by their 2nd and 3rd teams.
It was Florida / Bama then it was Bama / LSU, then it was UGA / Bama. Sprinkle in LSU, Ol Miss and Auburn having a big season and it elevated perception the entire conference.

Similarly, the BIG has OSU forever and a steady rotation of MICH, Penn St, MSU, Wiscy to challenge them.

When that number 2 team runs the table and challenges the #1, it does wonders for perception.

Even the lame duck PAC pulled it off this year with Wash & Oregon.

The ACC hasn’t had a strong 1 / 2 punch like that for a long, long time. It was FSU alone forever, then Clemson alone.
When there has been opportunity for a strong 2, it proceeds to drop head scratchers to the bottom of the conference or worse yet, out of conference. Seems like VT elevated that to an art form for a while… losIng to ODU or ECU or somebody and then running through the ACC schedule. We Had a shot at it this year with potential strong looking undefeated teams meeting up and FSU loses Travis to injury and Lville sucks up the joint vs a middling UK team. Opportunity missed.

I’d like to see Clemson come back and FSU sustain… maybe sprinkle in a 10 win season out of GT or Miami or UNC. Hate to say but our Thanksgiving weekend results will go a long way toward perceptions… we CAN control some of this narrative. Unfortunately we have been feeding it.

They do, but they ought not. Nobody has beaten UGAG, not named Alabama, much over the last 5 years. It’s not just us but we get singed for losing. Why not UF, AU, UK, UT, MO, and USCe?

Back when they were beatable, c. 1983-2016, we were very competitive with them and beat them 10x. That’s about 1 of every 3, but most of the rest were quite competitive.

 

[CEB]

They do, but they ought not. Nobody has beaten UGAG, not named Alabama, much over the last 5 years. It’s not just us but we get singed for losing. Why not UF, AU, UK, UT, MO, and USCe?

Back when they were beatable, c. 1983-2016, we were very competitive with them and beat them 10x. That’s about 1 of every 3, but most of the rest were quite competitive.

Well, if our only problem were an annual loss to uga, it probably wouldn’t hurt us very much…. Baby steps

 

[Bogey]

The agreement they signed with the acc states they can only join the acc in football until 2036. It just happens to be the same as the GOR.

“It's already been established that, if Notre Dame joins a conference between now and 2036, it has to be the ACC. That's the length of the grant of rights deal signed in 2016.”

Why the Notre Dame-ACC marriage of convenience may evolve into a meaningful relationship beyond 2020

The Fighting Irish have been resistant to join a conference, but what if they like it?

www.cbssports.com

To exit the ACC, they do not have to pay for their football media rights, only for the other sports, which according to David Hale and 247 is around 100 million on the high side, which is much lower than the amount FSU would owe if they left. With the payouts the B1G has, it is/was very doable and I am sure this was used in their negotiations with NBC on their new contract extension to 2029 signed late last year. Details of the new NBC contract are not known at this time.

Here is what was written by Brad Crawford in the 247 article:
" The Fighting Irish TV deal with the ACC includes a sizable exit fee, but Notre Dame would be free of paying the Grant of Rights charge for football, according to ESPN's David Hale.
Notre Dame's options include leaving for the Big Ten in 2024 and paying the ACC's exit fee — which is estimated in the range of $100 million (or equal to three times the ACC's most recent annual revenue) — or the Fighting Irish could stay put and determine what their next TV contract would fetch once the current deal with NBC expires in 2025."

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

The argument that “historically” the conference bias has kept 3-loss BIG / SEC teams ahead of 1-2 loss P5 made me take a quick look at CFP historic standings. I think it actually contradicts that assertion. A few 3 loss teams have snuck into the top ten but in those cases, the two loss teams behind them don’t support the bias you’re looking for…

2023 - no 3-loss team in top 10 and no 3-loss team over a 2-loss P5 team

2022- Two 3-loss teams snuck into the top 10 over 2-loss teams. Utah and KSt were ranked above 2-loss USC, Penn St and Washington. (Big Ten snub?)

2021 - no 3-loss top ten team

2020 - Florida and Iowa State snuck into top 10 with 3 losses in a screwed up partial season due to Covid. Not much to take from this year.

2019- Wisconsin snuck in at 10-3. The two loss teams behind them? Florida, Penn St, Utah, Bama and ND.

2018 - Washington and Florida were 3 loss teams. The only P5 team with 2 losses that fell behind them was Wash St.

2017 - 3 loss Auburn was #7. There were two loss USC, Penn St and Miami behind them at 8,9 and 10. The top ten “snubs” were 10-2 Washington at 11 and 12-0 UCF at 12.

2016 - three 3-loss teams at 8,9, and 10, led by Wisconsin ( Badgers seem to be the 3-loss darling of this analysis). Only P5 team with two losses behind them was WVU way back at 16.

2015 - no 3-loss top ten team

2014 - three loss teams in order #9 thru #18….. Ole Miss was #9 followed by Ariz, KSt, GT (biggest snub ever), uga, ucla, Ariz St, Mizzou, Clem, Wisconsin. No 2-loss P5 fell behind them.

I think you can make a solid argument that BIG / SEC teams have gotten the nod when losses are the SAME, but there isn’t much evidence to support 3 loss BIG/SEC teams being favored in the way you state. The good news for your theory is that if it does indeed start to happen, you can pretty clearly assert that they show bias NOW that top ten seeding really matters.

I hear you and that is great analysis. But you are bringing up examples from times where the rankings didn’t matter much. We are in an entire different era where being ranked 12th is just as important as being ranked 1st. And the committee’s ACTIONS, not words, have shown us what they are going to do. I hope I am absolutely wrong but I see absolutely no way the CFP in conjunction with ESPN will allow 2 ACC teams to be ranked in the top 12, especially when they won’t rank any of our teams in the top 15 pre-season poll. I guess one thing we have all learned is the most important poll is actually the pre-season poll because it sets the media narrative. So, if UGA loses early to Kentucky or Auburn the narrative won’t be that UGA is over rated it will be that Kentucky or Auburn finally made the turn. So UGA drops 3 slots and Kentucky/Auburn climb into the top 15. And if Clemson beats them on opening day, we know they won’t flip them spots. UGA would drop down to 5 (because they are having to retool some positions) and Clemson would climb to 13 or somewhere in there. And then UGA would climb right back up.

 

[Vespidae]

especially when they won’t rank any of our teams in the top 15 pre-season poll.

Aren’t those two DIFFERENT polls? The AP conducts the preseason poll and for much of the season. As the end of the season approaches, the CFP begins settings its ranking (which is not a poll, but rather .. how the CFP committee ranks the teams).

In 2023, two ACC teams were ranked preseaso: FSU at 8, and UNC at 21. In 2022, UNC had been preseason ranked 39, finished 22. FSU wasn‘t ranked, finished 11. So, two teams advanced a lot in preseason rankings.

Other than those two, who in your opinion should have been ranked?

 

[CEB]

I hear you and that is great analysis. But you are bringing up examples from times where the rankings didn’t matter much. We are in an entire different era where being ranked 12th is just as important as being ranked 1st. And the committee’s ACTIONS, not words, have shown us what they are going to do. I hope I am absolutely wrong but I see absolutely no way the CFP in conjunction with ESPN will allow 2 ACC teams to be ranked in the top 12, especially when they won’t rank any of our teams in the top 15 pre-season poll. I guess one thing we have all learned is the most important poll is actually the pre-season poll because it sets the media narrative. So, if UGA loses early to Kentucky or Auburn the narrative won’t be that UGA is over rated it will be that Kentucky or Auburn finally made the turn. So UGA drops 3 slots and Kentucky/Auburn climb into the top 15. And if Clemson beats them on opening day, we know they won’t flip them spots. UGA would drop down to 5 (because they are having to retool some positions) and Clemson would climb to 13 or somewhere in there. And then UGA would climb right back up.

That was kind of the point… the comment was made that this had been happening and it’s obvious that it hasn’t.
As I said, the good news for the theory is that if it starts now, we have a baseline to prove that it’s a willful attempt to exclude the ACC from the playoff now that such rankings DO matter.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

That was kind of the point… the comment was made that this had been happening and it’s obvious that it hasn’t.
As I said, the good news for the theory is that if it starts now, we have a baseline to prove that it’s a willful attempt to exclude the ACC from the playoff now that such rankings DO matter.

I won’t disagree with that. I already know but if it’s going to take the rest of you another 4-5 years of data to see what is happening then no problem. The train is at full speed so no stopping it now. All we can do is sit here and watch it unfold. I give the SEC/ESPN/CFP triumvirate credit. They can wordsmith with the best of them. Convincing the public that an injury was a valid reason to make 4 months disappear was awesome to see. Can’t wait to see the next 4-5 years worth of wordsplaining of why a 2 or 3 loss team is ranked ahead of a 1 or 2 loss team. It’s gonna be gold Jerry!

 

[Southern psu fan]

I don’t like it. I want to save the ACC and had they kept the playoffs to teams winning a conference championship that would definitely save the ACC and it would put ND on notice. We have four P4 conferences take 4 champs and let them fight it out on the field this keeps everybody’s opinions out of who the best team is! It keeps the conference championship very important. Just my opinion though

 

[stinger78]

I don’t like it. I want to save the ACC and had they kept the playoffs to teams winning a conference championship that would definitely save the ACC and it would put ND on notice. We have four P4 conferences take 4 champs and let them fight it out on the field this keeps everybody’s opinions out of who the best team is! It keeps the conference championship very important. Just my opinion though

Not just your opinion.

 

[Vespidae]

I don’t like it. I want to save the ACC and had they kept the playoffs to teams winning a conference championship that would definitely save the ACC and it would put ND on notice. We have four P4 conferences take 4 champs and let them fight it out on the field this keeps everybody’s opinions out of who the best team is! It keeps the conference championship very important. Just my opinion though

The best suggestion on this site has been to emulate the Premier League. Four levels of 32 teams each. Have a competition and championship in each. Top 4 teams in sub levels move up, bottom four move down. Money is distributed by both a share and what level.

It is insane that Vandy gets an SEC share simply because they are a member. As long as it’s every conference for itself, we will continue to fight each other.

Better to create a system where you can expand the game. For everyone.

 

[MWBATL]

The best suggestion on this site has been to emulate the Premier League. Four levels of 32 teams each. Have a competition and championship in each. Top 4 teams in sub levels move up, bottom four move down. Money is distributed by both a share and what level.

It is insane that Vandy gets an SEC share simply because they are a member. As long as it’s every conference for itself, we will continue to fight each other.

Better to create a system where you can expand the game. For everyone.

That’s the smartest long term answer. But it costs the big schools some money because of revenue sharing. Hence, they won’t do it.

 

[stinger78]

That’s the smartest long term answer. But it costs the big schools some money because of revenue sharing. Hence, they won’t do it.

You so have half the conferences being under-performers. Where would those votes end up?

 

[L41k18]

The latest proposal for a 14 team playoff includes 11 auto bids:
3 SEC
3 B1G
2 ACC
2 BigXII
1 G5
3 at large

 

[yeti92]

The latest proposal for a 14 team playoff includes 11 auto bids:
3 SEC
3 B1G
2 ACC
2 BigXII
1 G5
3 at large

I'd be fine with this if there was 1 at large, but we don't need 4 or 5 SEC or B1G teams in the playoff, that's ridiculous.