ADVERTISEMENT

This G5 Commissioner is Correct About Automatic P5 Bids to the CFP

I think automatic bids based off of conference championships are the only thing that will fix the playoff system. It should be based off of non-subjective criteria. As long as we have some silly ranking system picking playoff participants or some biased selection committees doing it we will have controversy regarding who gets in. The more we take it out of the hands of made up computer models and subjective selection committees we will have a broken system.
 
I don't think we need to expand it at all. Almost every semi-final game has been a blow out. There are typically only 2-3 teams that should be there in the first place. But if we are going to expand it, I support automatic berths. I'd do 8 teams. The 5 P5 conferences and the top ranked G5 team every year, and then 2 at large teams, with the seeding being done by the rankings. That's the only way to ensure you get the undefeated teams. It would be bogus to not have automatic berths. I don't like leaving it in the hands of humans who have clear biases. Do you really think an 8-4 Florida deserved to be there last year, because they would have if you just take the top 8 teams. That's idiotic. With what I just proposed, last year would have been:

Alabama vs. USC
Clemson vs. Cincinatti
Ohio State vs. A&M
Oklahoma vs. Notre Dame

That's way more interesting, and I don't think there's any doubt the best teams are in that group. Yeah, you get USC, but a team that has one loss and wins a weak conference is better than a 4 loss team.
I agree on this. Twelve is too big of a change. Eight eliminates the bye.
 
Whether 12 teams make post season better or worse has been debated on these boards, and I’m late to the argument. But I’m with you, King. There is no reason that a 7-5 P5 team who sneaks in to a conference title game and wins deserves to get into the playoffs.

My opinion on the whole thing - I had been a proponent of going to 8, and I cringed when I first read 12. But I think this is brilliant! It guarantees at least one G5 team, and if we are lucky and see a low ranking upset in a P5 conference, we might see TWO G5 teams. That is awesome. The other conferences finally have a real seat at the table, and we all still have drama to complain about in the selection of the 6 at large teams. Plus it’s more football that counts. God knows the bowl games have become a watered down suck-fest.
 
Last edited:
I don't think we need to expand it at all. Almost every semi-final game has been a blow out. There are typically only 2-3 teams that should be there in the first place. But if we are going to expand it, I support automatic berths. I'd do 8 teams. The 5 P5 conferences and the top ranked G5 team every year, and then 2 at large teams, with the seeding being done by the rankings. That's the only way to ensure you get the undefeated teams. It would be bogus to not have automatic berths. I don't like leaving it in the hands of humans who have clear biases. Do you really think an 8-4 Florida deserved to be there last year, because they would have if you just take the top 8 teams. That's idiotic. With what I just proposed, last year would have been:

Alabama vs. USC
Clemson vs. Cincinatti
Ohio State vs. A&M
Oklahoma vs. Notre Dame

That's way more interesting, and I don't think there's any doubt the best teams are in that group. Yeah, you get USC, but a team that has one loss and wins a weak conference is better than a 4 loss team.
Agree completely, comprehensively, and unequivocally.
 
automatic bids are dumb, should be the 12 best teams make it, this isn't basketball where cupcakes get free entry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 92Pony
I don't think we need to expand it at all. Almost every semi-final game has been a blow out. There are typically only 2-3 teams that should be there in the first place. But if we are going to expand it, I support automatic berths. I'd do 8 teams. The 5 P5 conferences and the top ranked G5 team every year, and then 2 at large teams, with the seeding being done by the rankings. That's the only way to ensure you get the undefeated teams. It would be bogus to not have automatic berths. I don't like leaving it in the hands of humans who have clear biases. Do you really think an 8-4 Florida deserved to be there last year, because they would have if you just take the top 8 teams. That's idiotic. With what I just proposed, last year would have been:

Alabama vs. USC
Clemson vs. Cincinatti
Ohio State vs. A&M
Oklahoma vs. Notre Dame

That's way more interesting, and I don't think there's any doubt the best teams are in that group. Yeah, you get USC, but a team that has one loss and wins a weak conference is better than a 4 loss team.
I like this format better than what is being proposed.
 
But without common opponents, you don't know what a tough schedule is. We typically don't learn that until the Bowls. It's usually the SEC > ACC > B1G > Big XII > Pac 12 > G5, but there have been years when some G5 conferences were top to bottom better than some P5 conferences, and while you might hate this, some years where the ACC or B1G ended up being the best conference. It's based on inherent bias. Cincinatti was the top ranked G5 team, not Coastal. Georgia only got past them by the skin of their teeth and they stomped White's rushing threat.

I only used CCU b/c some around here are so enamored with what they did last year.

But, sure, you can make a lot of judgments about schedule aside from common opponents. UC's schedule last year was Austin Peay, Army, USF, SMU, Memphis, Houston, ECU, UCF and Tulsa. That is not a tough schedule, by any measure.

Truth is, the pendulum has swung completely in the other direction for me on this. Way back when, I used to pull for the Boise States of the world. It was kind of fun to see this plucky little team from out of nowhere come up and beat a power like OU in a bowl game. I used to accept the "all they can do is play the games in front of them" argument that is used to dismiss the schedule disparity. But now it's gone too far in the other direction for me, so the pendulum has swing completely back for me. Yes, it absolutely does matter that you're playing higher quality opponents week-in and week-out. No G5 school has ever played a schedule that's close to on par with any P5 schedule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: king ward
Whether 12 teams make post season better or worse has been debated on these boards, and I’m late to the argument. But I’m with you, King. There is no reason that a 7-5 P5 team who sneaks in to a conference title game and wins deserves to get into the playoffs.

My opinion on the whole thing - I had been a proponent of going to 8, and I cringed when I first read 12. But I think this is brilliant! It guarantees at least one G5 team, and if we are lucky and see a low ranking upset in a P5 conference, we might see TWO G5 teams. That is awesome. The other conferences finally have a real seat at the table, and we all still have drama to complain about in the selection of the 6 at large teams. Plus it’s more football that counts. God knows the bowl games have become a watered down suck-fest.
This right here.
Just because it has not happened yet doesn't mean it never will. The 12 team expansion playoff is a fait accompli, so it imperative to get the format correct going forward.
 
This right here.
Just because it has not happened yet doesn't mean it never will. The 12 team expansion playoff is a fait accompli, so it imperative to get the format correct going forward.
It's tragic but true, but the idea of automatic bids is why it is tragic. That renders it completely bogus in my opinion.
 
Whether 12 teams make post season better or worse has been debated on these boards, and I’m late to the argument. But I’m with you, King. There is no reason that a 7-5 P5 team who sneaks in to a conference title game and wins deserves to get into the playoffs.

My opinion on the whole thing - I had been a proponent of going to 8, and I cringed when I first read 12. But I think this is brilliant! It guarantees at least one G5 team, and if we are lucky and see a low ranking upset in a P5 conference, we might see TWO G5 teams. That is awesome. The other conferences finally have a real seat at the table, and we all still have drama to complain about in the selection of the 6 at large teams. Plus it’s more football that counts. God knows the bowl games have become a watered down suck-fest.
I appreciate your agreement with the essential point of no automatic bids. I am unalterably opposed to expansion in any case. It only makes it easier not to establish a separate division for G5 schools, which needs to happen, to limit conference games to eight, which the SEC still cravenly does, and to keep filling the non-conference schedule with cupcakes. It's the regular season that needs to be fixed.
 
I think automatic bids based off of conference championships are the only thing that will fix the playoff system. It should be based off of non-subjective criteria. As long as we have some silly ranking system picking playoff participants or some biased selection committees doing it we will have controversy regarding who gets in. The more we take it out of the hands of made up computer models and subjective selection committees we will have a broken system.

automatic bids are dumb, should be the 12 best teams make it, this isn't basketball where cupcakes get free entry.

I agree with both of these posts in part;

I hate automatic bids. Just because you're the tallest midget in your group, does NOT mean you are one of the 12 best teams in the country.

HOWEVER, relying on computer models and humans with bias - intentional or not - isn't perfect either.

I don't know the answer, but I can surmise that as long as we fail to make the CFP, most of us Gamecock fans will see flaws in the system, myself included, obviously.
 
It won't be long before they do away with the P5 and G5 designations, as it's implicit that one is superior to the other. You can't really discuss this issue without it turning political.
 
I agree with both of these posts in part;

I hate automatic bids. Just because you're the tallest midget in your group, does NOT mean you are one of the 12 best teams in the country.

HOWEVER, relying on computer models and humans with bias - intentional or not - isn't perfect either.

I don't know the answer, but I can surmise that as long as we fail to make the CFP, most of us Gamecock fans will see flaws in the system, myself included, obviously.
Of the possible flaws, automatic bids are the worst.
 
Actually, you can
And, up to now, have.

No, you can't. What's taking place in sports is merely a reflection of what's taking place in society at large.

It's fine to discuss on a superficial level, as has been done, but the root of the issue is far deeper than sports and any serious discussion would inevitably intertwine with politics.

I'm not going any further than that with it. Just stating the obvious...that we can't seriously discuss it b/c it would necessarily turn political.
 
No, you can't. What's taking place in sports is merely a reflection of what's taking place in society at large.

It's fine to discuss on a superficial level, as has been done, but the root of the issue is far deeper than sports and any serious discussion would inevitably intertwine with politics.

I'm not going any further than that with it. Just stating the obvious...that we can't seriously discuss it b/c it would necessarily turn political.
Diametrically disagree.
 
I agree with both of these posts in part;

I hate automatic bids. Just because you're the tallest midget in your group, does NOT mean you are one of the 12 best teams in the country.

HOWEVER, relying on computer models and humans with bias - intentional or not - isn't perfect either.

I don't know the answer, but I can surmise that as long as we fail to make the CFP, most of us Gamecock fans will see flaws in the system, myself included, obviously.
I cannot think of a recent P5 conference champ who would not deserve to be in the group of 12/ or 8 for that matter. Saying they are not necessarily the best in their conference leaves me with a simple one line retort- PROVE IT. The team that won your conference did what they needed to do to PROVE they are the champ, you did not. It is that simple, and there is no bias or subjective rankings BS in the decision process. You told me to have the best record and win a conference championship game and I DID.
 
I cannot think of a recent P5 conference champ who would not deserve to be in the group of 12/ or 8 for that matter. Saying they are not necessarily the best in their conference leaves me with a simple one line retort- PROVE IT. The team that won your conference did what they needed to do to PROVE they are the champ, you did not. It is that simple, and there is no bias or subjective rankings BS in the decision process. You told me to have the best record and win a conference championship game and I DID.
I'm saying there were years some of the conferences sucked. I'm saying that, if a school winds up winning a conference with three losses, as we were in a position to do one year, that team shouldn't be in the playoffs. If such a team can get a playoff spot, then the field is too large.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrMickey
I'm saying there were years some of the conferences sucked. I'm saying that, if a school winds up winning a conference with three losses, as we were in a position to do one year, that team shouldn't be in the playoffs. If such a team can get a playoff spot, then the field is too large.

There absolutely will be 3-loss teams in the playoffs. No way around that. Some years there will be more than one.

I remember the good old days when folks bickered about whether a 2-loss team was worthy.
 
I'm saying there were years some of the conferences sucked. I'm saying that, if a school winds up winning a conference with three losses, as we were in a position to do one year, that team shouldn't be in the playoffs. If such a team can get a playoff spot, then the field is too large.
That on the surface seems reasonable, but in the NFL they allow anyone who wins their conference into the playoffs regardless of record and it works out fine for them. Champions should be determined on the field not by some biased ranking based off of where the team started the season- that is fantasy. If a team gets lucky and wins their conference but is a bad team, it will be born out through the playoffs. That is why you play the games. If a team with 3-4 losses gets hot, wins their conference and goes undefeated through the ling portion of a 12 team playoff they 100% deserve to be crowned champions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SCexpat38
That on the surface seems reasonable, but in the NFL they allow anyone who wins their conference into the playoffs regardless of record and it works out fine for them. Champions should be determined on the field not by some biased ranking based off of where the team started the season- that is fantasy. If a team gets lucky and wins their conference but is a bad team, it will be born out through the playoffs. That is why you play the games. If a team with 3-4 losses gets hot, wins their conference and goes undefeated through the ling portion of a 12 team playoff they 100% deserve to be crowned champions.
I don't see where an entity that contains scores of teams need emulate the processes of an entity containing 32, especially an entity with a common draft and centralized scheduling designed to foster parity. They are playing the same sport, but there the similarity ends.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USMCatFan
Whether 12 teams make post season better or worse has been debated on these boards, and I’m late to the argument. But I’m with you, King. There is no reason that a 7-5 P5 team who sneaks in to a conference title game and wins deserves to get into the playoffs.

My opinion on the whole thing - I had been a proponent of going to 8, and I cringed when I first read 12. But I think this is brilliant! It guarantees at least one G5 team, and if we are lucky and see a low ranking upset in a P5 conference, we might see TWO G5 teams. That is awesome. The other conferences finally have a real seat at the table, and we all still have drama to complain about in the selection of the 6 at large teams. Plus it’s more football that counts. God knows the bowl games have become a watered down suck-fest.
You can’t think of a scenario where a 7-5 team deserves a bid?
 
No, you can't. What's taking place in sports is merely a reflection of what's taking place in society at large.

It's fine to discuss on a superficial level, as has been done, but the root of the issue is far deeper than sports and any serious discussion would inevitably intertwine with politics.

I'm not going any further than that with it. Just stating the obvious...that we can't seriously discuss it b/c it would necessarily turn political.
As I said before, this is the sole and only root of the issue pertaining to this particular subject.
To argue otherwise is a fool's errand.

CFP expansion could increase annual revenue to $2 billion​

https://apnews.com/article/college-...ege-football-e2e2beb24fac0b8782b96e841cfb9b40
 
I don't see where an entity that contains scores of teams need emulate the processes of an entity containing 32, especially an entity with a common draft and centralized scheduling designed to foster parity. They are playing the same sport, but there the similarity ends.
It is not entirely similar on that we can agree- and I am not saying it needs to be done the exact same way as that would be impossible. Even at 12 teams- which for me seems excessive- CFB will not place NEARLY the percentage of teams in the playoffs that the NFL does. My point is that they can take some of the good aspects from the selection process of the pros to remove the problems facing the selection process about bias and subjectivity. There will be no clear path to “wild card” teams that can match the NFL for the “at large” bids that will be included in CFB, but including some automatic bids to remove as much of the subjectivity as we can is important to me and I am glad to see they plan to do that.
 
I cannot think of a recent P5 conference champ who would not deserve to be in the group of 12/ or 8 for that matter. Saying they are not necessarily the best in their conference leaves me with a simple one line retort- PROVE IT. The team that won your conference did what they needed to do to PROVE they are the champ, you did not. It is that simple, and there is no bias or subjective rankings BS in the decision process. You told me to have the best record and win a conference championship game and I DID.
If you don't know Bama was the best team in college football last season, than you're dumber than hell.
 
It is not entirely similar on that we can agree- and I am not saying it needs to be done the exact same way as that would be impossible. Even at 12 teams- which for me seems excessive- CFB will not place NEARLY the percentage of teams in the playoffs that the NFL does. My point is that they can take some of the good aspects from the selection process of the pros to remove the problems facing the selection process about bias and subjectivity. There will be no clear path to “wild card” teams that can match the NFL for the “at large” bids that will be included in CFB, but including some automatic bids to remove as much of the subjectivity as we can is important to me and I am glad to see they plan to do that.
I don't mean to deflect, but I've been crying for changes to the way the regular-season is conducted that would make the entire season better for every major college football fan and provide pool money for the FCS teams that would no longer be playing FBS schools. These changes would really test teams all the way through the campaign and make the playoffs much more compelling and righteous. But it all goes to Hades if you start guaranteeing births to conference winners, irrespective of a team's record.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrMickey
I don't mean to deflect, but I've been crying for changes to the way the regular-season is conducted that would make the entire season better for every major college football fan and provide pool money for the FCS teams that would no longer be playing FBS schools. These changes would really test teams all the way through the campaign and make the playoffs much more compelling and righteous. But it all goes to Hades if you start guaranteeing births to conference winners, irrespective of a team's record.
I think we would all appreciate some well thought out changes to the regular season- What regular season changes are you talking about specifically and how would they be ruined by automatic berths?

I agree the current system of FBS playing FCS teams is dumb, a d there should be more similarity between how various conferences conduct business.
Personally- my suggestions are:
1- FCS teams play an FBS team each year as a scrimmage in place of Spring games- allows for a pay out to the FCS teams, better development during Spring, with linger recovery times should unfortunate injuries occur during a virtually meaningless game…

2- instead of playing a full regular season and then conf championships and THEN having the playoffs- have the conference championships BE the first round of the playoffs! You could have a play in game for the totwo G5/ best teams who did not win their divisions as well- this leads to a (IMO) proper 12 team field without extending the season as much and leaves very little up to subjective rankings…

The reason these types or revamps won’t work is it would require buy by all FBS level teams to accommodate it by joining conferences and all conferences adopting a reasonably similar regular season to lead up to the conference championships. with CFB having no continuity and no organization controling it with any power to enforce reasonable change there is no way to make it work under the current structure.

That is just my take though. I am certainly interested to hear yours.
 
I think we would all appreciate some well thought out changes to the regular season- What regular season changes are you talking about specifically and how would they be ruined by automatic berths?

I agree the current system of FBS playing FCS teams is dumb, a d there should be more similarity between how various conferences conduct business.
Personally- my suggestions are:
1- FCS teams play an FBS team each year as a scrimmage in place of Spring games- allows for a pay out to the FCS teams, better development during Spring, with linger recovery times should unfortunate injuries occur during a virtually meaningless game…

2- instead of playing a full regular season and then conf championships and THEN having the playoffs- have the conference championships BE the first round of the playoffs! You could have a play in game for the totwo G5/ best teams who did not win their divisions as well- this leads to a (IMO) proper 12 team field without extending the season as much and leaves very little up to subjective rankings…

The reason these types or revamps won’t work is it would require buy by all FBS level teams to accommodate it by joining conferences and all conferences adopting a reasonably similar regular season to lead up to the conference championships. with CFB having no continuity and no organization controling it with any power to enforce reasonable change there is no way to make it work under the current structure.

That is just my take though. I am certainly interested to hear yours.
#2 is interesting but leaky. Those three and four-loss teams need to be eliminated sooner than that.
 
I've mentioned this a few times. Move AAC to the power 5 making the power 6. One automatic birth from each. Six births. Now you have the G4. Have the MAC champion play the Mountain West champion with the winner getting a birth. Have the C-USA champion play the Sunbelt champion the same weekend with the winner getting the 8th and final birth. No choices to be made by committee, no second chances at a title and no one is denied a shot. I fail to see how that's a bad thing.
 
Alabama vs. USC
Clemson vs. Cincinatti
Ohio State vs. A&M
Oklahoma vs. Notre Dame

That's way more interesting, and I don't think there's any doubt the best teams are in that group.

you don’t think there’s any doubt the best teams are in that group?? Lol. So Cincinnati played literally nobody in the regular season, then played the 4th best SEC team in a bowl and lost. You say USC “had one loss”, but failed to mention they only played 6 games. How many would they have lost if they played a full season? It’s just a fact that every year, 3 of the top 5-6 teams will be SEC teams. So if you “can’t have too many teams from one conference”, you aren’t about selecting the actual BEST teams, you’re only having an inter-conference tournament that may have the top 4 teams and 4 more teams that may realistically be the 10th-25th best teams.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT