Playoff teams under proposed 3-3-2-2-1 model

[krindor]

Wrote up a huge breakdown of how the last decade of playoffs would have broken down with the currently discussed 3-3-2-2-1 model (3 autobids each for SEC and B1G, 2 each for ACC and Big 12, 1 for G5 and then 3 at-large).

Bottom line it’s very good for the Big 12 and benefits the Big 12 more than just about any other. Lots of info – unfortunately it’s on CougarBoard which I know some won’t like, but trying to format it again here would be a nightmare, so wanted to link it for folks to see. Should still be a useful/interesting read for us here.

Also nice to see that Utah would have been in the playoffs 3 times in the last decade. Only 12 teams would have more appearances (and two of those only get there by virtue of autobids elevating seasons that otherwise wouldn’t be playoff worthy)

Hypothetical Playoff Participants 2014-2023

[MDUte]

I would be very surprised if the proposed format becomes final. With the B1G/SEC being the ones pushing for more auto bids, this format benefits others more than them. Why would they agree to this? I think they’ll continue to “play nice” but ultimately will get 4 auto bids each.

[AlohaUte]

I think this is great. The tweak I would make to this is that for the P4 conferences, it is 3 or 2 autobids respectively so long as the teams are ranked in the top 16. Like one year #24 Virginia made it in while #13 Bama didn’t. Bama should be in in that case.

Top G6 should always be in no matter where ranked.

[MDUte]

Main drawback of auto bids: Outside of conference champs, the 2nd and 3rd place teams from a conference receiving an auto bid might not be one of the Top 12 or 14 or 16 ranked teams in the country.
This article points out that #24 ranked Virginia finished second in the ACC in 2019 and would’ve qualified for an auto bid under the proposed 14 team playoff as the ACC’s 2nd place finisher. And in 2018 Syracuse, ranked #20, would’ve received an auto bid.

I guess on the flip side, the Auto Bid model takes the subjectivity of rankings out of the equation for the most part. The committee would only be releasing rankings that determine the final 3 at large teams. But for 11 of the 14 spots, teams control their own destiny by either winning their conference, finishing 2nd in the case of B12/ACC, or finishing 2nd or 3rd in the B1G/SEC.

14 Team Auto Bid Model Makes CFP an Invitiational, Not a Playoff

[DataUte]

Well, the 2nd place team usually makes sense (loser of CCG) but could be someone who doesn’t make the CCG could be #2 (not sure if this is the case anymore as divisions seem to be going away). But you still need rankings for #3 in the SEC and B1G as well as the 3 at-large bids.

[MDUte]

For example, what if the B12 is complete dog sh*t one year (not a stretch to imagine)? And Utah finishes 13-0 but the 2nd place team goes 8-5. Is it fair for that 2nd place team to automatically be put into the CFP to determine the national champion? Or should the CFP ensure that the best 12 or 14 or 16 teams play?
Auto bids bring the possibility of non-deserving teams getting in. The reason behind them is to ensure the amount of revenue the conferences get. The fans of the B12/ACC might be saying, “well at least we are guaranteed to have 2 of our teams playing in the CFP each year” but the conference leadership of the B12/ACC are saying “well at least we are guaranteed to make X amount $s each year from the CFP.”

[MDUte]

This isn’t good. If they are going to expand from 12, they should go to 16 so there are no 1st round byes.

In the most circulated version of the proposed 14-team CFP model, champions of the SEC & Big Ten would be guaranteed the two first-round byes, sources tell @YahooSports.

Intense debate and discussion among leaders continues.https://t.co/SBNluvjbre

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) February 29, 2024

[MDUte]

Now it makes sense why the SEC/B1G are willing to concede on demanding 4 auto bids each. This isn’t going well. Just create the final Super League and do away with all of this inequality across CFB.

Have confirmed this. It is part of the reason the Big Ten/SEC would be OK with 3 auto-bids, not four. Also have to imagine this would be difficult for ACC/Big 12 to agree to. https://t.co/LhI5HC5JyL

— Nicole Auerbach (@NicoleAuerbach) February 29, 2024

[Utah]

There is such an easy way to fix all this:

The playoffs, whether 12 teams or 14 or 16, take the top 12/14/16 ranked teams.

Easy. BUT, it’s not fair for a one loss G5 to make it in over a 2 loss SEC team. So, how do you fix that? Normalize the schedules. The easiest way to do this is to create one rule:

1. You must play at least 9 P5 games a year (or 10) not counting the conference championship game to qualify. If you want to throw the G5 a bone, they must play at least 4 P5 games to qualify.

That’s it.

Problem solved. No G5 will end up with less than two losses if they have to play 4 P5’s a year. So, you don’t have to worry about G5’s taking spots. And the B1G and SEC just need to put 10 teams into the top 16 to get ten spots.

And you don’t have to worry about an 8-5 team getting in because they are #2 in the ACC.