Never mind how ridiculous it is that they are considering changing it before they even play a single CFP-12. From all the reporting, this looks to be a done deal, for the most part. Details to be worked out, especially the $$$ aspect. But, to be clear, the SEC and the B1G have put their collective feet down, and I am not sure I like it. It feels slimy, but let's look into the motivation other than pure greed.
What is it?
- NFL like CFP-14 with two 1st round byes, 6 games with 3 v. 14, through 8 v. 9. Then a round of 4, round of 2, then championship.
- 13 total games instead of 11 in the CFP-12, or 3 in the CFP-4.
- A lot of auto-qualifiers
- SEC and B1G get 3 each
- ACC and B12 get 2 each
- G5 gets 1
- ND is in if ranked 14th or better
- 2 at large slots.
- The two first-round byes go to the SEC and B1G champs - at least that is what they are arguing for.
- $$$ distribution to be decided on, but I'd guess it will be similar to March Madness and is based on each team getting in and winning games. Totally merit based.
Why I don't like it:
- It just doesn't feel right. It feels kind of dirty. An AQ for a conference champion made sense to me ... but 3 or 4 for one conference and fewer for others doesn't seem right, even if we acknowledge the disparity in the conferences. It's guaranteed to piss off fans of non-SEC/B1G from the get-go, and that doesn't seem good.
Why are they doing this and why might it be good?
1. At the end of the day it's because they don't trust the committee to weigh SOS. Except for FSU this year, the committee has basically been willing to say, "we are going to look at win/loss records and go with the teams with the most wins." That simply will not work where you have conferences that have far more talent than other conferences. The minute an 11-1 Arizona gets a top seed and a 10-2 SEC Champ doesn't, it's over. The minute a 10-2 Baylor gets in and a 9-3 Alabama doesn't because they lost to tOSU, UGA, and Auburn, it's over - because the committee doesn't seem to be able to look past wins and losses. But, with there being such a disparity of talent within the conferences, looking at just the wins and losses doesn't make any sense anymore.
This actually has some good to it. People here and outside the UGA fanbase have often told me not to complain when Bama eliminated us from the CFP. The SECCG was a play-in to the CFP. Not by the rules it wasn't, and wasn't everyone else lucky they donf' have to go through Bama during the Saban era. This way, the conference schedule is a play-in. Be top 3, or 4th and ranked 14 or better and you are going to get in. Conference standings matter. Conference games matter.
This has a great side-benefit of encouraging great OOC games. UGA can lose to tOSU and GaTech (hypothetical, obviously), and then come in 1-3 in the SEC and still get in. This will encourage OOC games as they don't keep you from getting into the CFP.
It will also encourage the SEC to go to 9 IC games, and perhaps even 10 at some point. Why not? The conference regular season is now the entry to the playoffs, and so long as everyone in the SEC plays 9 or 10 games, no SEC team has an advantage. Before, if we were divisionless and playing 9 IC games, we might have teams not ranked as high as others in lesser conferences who lost fewer games but played worse schedules. That doesn't matter now.
2. We acknowledge the P4 v. G5 gap. Why not acknowledge the P2 v. other 2 P teams gap? When the P2 have UGA/Bama/LSU/OU/UT/ATM/UTjr/AU/UF, and then UM/tOSU/PSU/UO/UW/USC, why not give them preference over a conference like the B12 whose best team is Kansas, KSU, Baylor, OkSU, TCU, or Utah? Or in the ACC with Clemson, FSU, and then maybe Miami or UNC. By acknowledging the difference in the schedules played, giving 3 AQs to some and 2 to others makes sense. Especially with 2 at-larges that could over the years where the Minor P2 conferences may have a 3rd really good team.
An argument could be made that this actually works against the SEC/B1G and for the B12/ACC. I think the B12 will jump at having 2 AQs because in most years they would probably only get 1. The ACC in their best year would likely only get 2, so they are neutral on this. This will likely keep the SEC/B1G from getting 5, but both will likely get at least 1 more in as at-large bids.
ND really isn't getting an AQ ... they have to be top 14 to get in. So that's not an AQ.
3. The SEC/B1G getting the two byes really feels bad. But, if I were the SEC/B1G I might insist on it unless changes were made to the committee selection process to ensure that wins and losses aren't all that are looked at. They do it in basketball with NET scores and KenPom type computer rankings. If they would use the BCS type of index, then maybe byes could be open. Just like the no. 1 seeding in March Madness. If the SEC/B1G gets everything they want, and some agreement as to how the committee evaluates the SOS, maybe agree to it for 6 years, but let them know that those byes will go to the SEC/B1G in 2033 if the committee doesn't do a better job.
FWIW, the SEC and B1G got 75% of the 1 and 2 seeds in the 10 years of CFP-4. So it's not going to be that off anyway. It just feels kind of slimy.
What did the CFP-12 do that the CFP-14 doesn't do or not do?
1. The 4 byes were a reward for teams that won their CC game. It meant that teams that played the 13th game and won, got a week off, and didn't have to play teams that stayed at home. That's gone now. You will have teams that played a 13th game have to play teams that stayed home. They better protect those teams and make sure they get home games and at least 2 weeks to recover and prep.
2. The CFP 12 had 5 playing 12, down to 8 playing 9. This lessened the likelihood of blowouts in the first round. We now get 3 v. 14, 4 v. 13 that are more likely to be blowouts. 5 v. 12 might be more competitive as 12 will no longer be the P5 school. But, it appears we might have few more blowouts.
3. AQs protect all conferences. That's good.
4. ND still can't get a bye.
5. I am sure there is more.
The more I have thought about it, the better it seems to me. I especially like that it renders the committee neutered. It will certainly make the final few weeks of the SEC regular season exciting. You can be the last team out of AQs, but play well enough to get 1 of 2 at-large bids. I really like that it takes away the disincentive to play big OOC games. Like basketball, where teams like to play great OOC games, knowing the conference schedule will decide if they get in or not, we should see even more great OOC games.
I am sure I got some things wrong here ... it's a work in progress. What say you?
What is it?
- NFL like CFP-14 with two 1st round byes, 6 games with 3 v. 14, through 8 v. 9. Then a round of 4, round of 2, then championship.
- 13 total games instead of 11 in the CFP-12, or 3 in the CFP-4.
- A lot of auto-qualifiers
- SEC and B1G get 3 each
- ACC and B12 get 2 each
- G5 gets 1
- ND is in if ranked 14th or better
- 2 at large slots.
- The two first-round byes go to the SEC and B1G champs - at least that is what they are arguing for.
- $$$ distribution to be decided on, but I'd guess it will be similar to March Madness and is based on each team getting in and winning games. Totally merit based.
Why I don't like it:
- It just doesn't feel right. It feels kind of dirty. An AQ for a conference champion made sense to me ... but 3 or 4 for one conference and fewer for others doesn't seem right, even if we acknowledge the disparity in the conferences. It's guaranteed to piss off fans of non-SEC/B1G from the get-go, and that doesn't seem good.
Why are they doing this and why might it be good?
1. At the end of the day it's because they don't trust the committee to weigh SOS. Except for FSU this year, the committee has basically been willing to say, "we are going to look at win/loss records and go with the teams with the most wins." That simply will not work where you have conferences that have far more talent than other conferences. The minute an 11-1 Arizona gets a top seed and a 10-2 SEC Champ doesn't, it's over. The minute a 10-2 Baylor gets in and a 9-3 Alabama doesn't because they lost to tOSU, UGA, and Auburn, it's over - because the committee doesn't seem to be able to look past wins and losses. But, with there being such a disparity of talent within the conferences, looking at just the wins and losses doesn't make any sense anymore.
This actually has some good to it. People here and outside the UGA fanbase have often told me not to complain when Bama eliminated us from the CFP. The SECCG was a play-in to the CFP. Not by the rules it wasn't, and wasn't everyone else lucky they donf' have to go through Bama during the Saban era. This way, the conference schedule is a play-in. Be top 3, or 4th and ranked 14 or better and you are going to get in. Conference standings matter. Conference games matter.
This has a great side-benefit of encouraging great OOC games. UGA can lose to tOSU and GaTech (hypothetical, obviously), and then come in 1-3 in the SEC and still get in. This will encourage OOC games as they don't keep you from getting into the CFP.
It will also encourage the SEC to go to 9 IC games, and perhaps even 10 at some point. Why not? The conference regular season is now the entry to the playoffs, and so long as everyone in the SEC plays 9 or 10 games, no SEC team has an advantage. Before, if we were divisionless and playing 9 IC games, we might have teams not ranked as high as others in lesser conferences who lost fewer games but played worse schedules. That doesn't matter now.
2. We acknowledge the P4 v. G5 gap. Why not acknowledge the P2 v. other 2 P teams gap? When the P2 have UGA/Bama/LSU/OU/UT/ATM/UTjr/AU/UF, and then UM/tOSU/PSU/UO/UW/USC, why not give them preference over a conference like the B12 whose best team is Kansas, KSU, Baylor, OkSU, TCU, or Utah? Or in the ACC with Clemson, FSU, and then maybe Miami or UNC. By acknowledging the difference in the schedules played, giving 3 AQs to some and 2 to others makes sense. Especially with 2 at-larges that could over the years where the Minor P2 conferences may have a 3rd really good team.
An argument could be made that this actually works against the SEC/B1G and for the B12/ACC. I think the B12 will jump at having 2 AQs because in most years they would probably only get 1. The ACC in their best year would likely only get 2, so they are neutral on this. This will likely keep the SEC/B1G from getting 5, but both will likely get at least 1 more in as at-large bids.
ND really isn't getting an AQ ... they have to be top 14 to get in. So that's not an AQ.
3. The SEC/B1G getting the two byes really feels bad. But, if I were the SEC/B1G I might insist on it unless changes were made to the committee selection process to ensure that wins and losses aren't all that are looked at. They do it in basketball with NET scores and KenPom type computer rankings. If they would use the BCS type of index, then maybe byes could be open. Just like the no. 1 seeding in March Madness. If the SEC/B1G gets everything they want, and some agreement as to how the committee evaluates the SOS, maybe agree to it for 6 years, but let them know that those byes will go to the SEC/B1G in 2033 if the committee doesn't do a better job.
FWIW, the SEC and B1G got 75% of the 1 and 2 seeds in the 10 years of CFP-4. So it's not going to be that off anyway. It just feels kind of slimy.
What did the CFP-12 do that the CFP-14 doesn't do or not do?
1. The 4 byes were a reward for teams that won their CC game. It meant that teams that played the 13th game and won, got a week off, and didn't have to play teams that stayed at home. That's gone now. You will have teams that played a 13th game have to play teams that stayed home. They better protect those teams and make sure they get home games and at least 2 weeks to recover and prep.
2. The CFP 12 had 5 playing 12, down to 8 playing 9. This lessened the likelihood of blowouts in the first round. We now get 3 v. 14, 4 v. 13 that are more likely to be blowouts. 5 v. 12 might be more competitive as 12 will no longer be the P5 school. But, it appears we might have few more blowouts.
3. AQs protect all conferences. That's good.
4. ND still can't get a bye.
5. I am sure there is more.
The more I have thought about it, the better it seems to me. I especially like that it renders the committee neutered. It will certainly make the final few weeks of the SEC regular season exciting. You can be the last team out of AQs, but play well enough to get 1 of 2 at-large bids. I really like that it takes away the disincentive to play big OOC games. Like basketball, where teams like to play great OOC games, knowing the conference schedule will decide if they get in or not, we should see even more great OOC games.
I am sure I got some things wrong here ... it's a work in progress. What say you?
Last edited:
