It most likely makes more sense to look at this in terms of ratio of the eight-team playoff likelihood over the four-team likelihood. And because sense: Clemson, Ohio State and Alabama lose. In their existing circumstances theyre all between 67% to 70% in terms of possibility to reach the playoff, and each would just acquire 12 to 14 portion points in an eight-team field. Thats simply not worth it to those teams for the cost of doubling the size of the playoff– making it more difficult to transform a playoff look into a national championship.
Lauren Poe added to this article.
This post was written before the Mountain West Conference released its 2020 schedule on Thursday, Oct. 1.
Since the Pac-12 (and the MAC) have yet to release their full schedules, and this was put together before the Mountain West released its schedule on Thursday afternoon, we could not predict their seasons. As an outcome, each of our simulations consisted of an unknown “Pac-12 champ” in the playoff; teams from the Mountain West and MAC could not earn the Group of 5 playoff area; and no Pac-12 teams were awarded any at-large bids. Thats just the expense of working without a schedule.
However enough details. Lets return to the forecasts.
Texas (most likely) is going to the playoff!
As of Tuesday, the Longhorns have a 28% opportunity to reach the playoff. If the committee had chosen to add four more playoff teams under the 5-2-1 format, Texas chances would have shot all the method as much as 67%!
But everyones opportunities go up when there are eight teams, right?
Not like this. Texas increase of nearly 40 percentage points is more than double every Power 5 group.
So why is Texas so disproportionately impacted? Due to the fact that of the circumstance it and its conference remains in. Within the Big 12, the Longhorns are sitting pretty. Theyre the very best group in the conference, FPI believes, and their biggest challenger– the Oklahoma Sooners– already have a loss.
But theres an issue: The Big 12 is looking … weak.
It ranks 50th amongst teams whose schedules have presently been launched. Thats not the top-four résumé you d like if making a case for the playoff.
The Longhorns have a 65% chance to win the conference, but, keep in mind, just a 28% shot at the playoff in genuine life. Suddenly in an eight-team format, every one of those conference title simulations ends up being an auto-berth to the playoff.
By the method, even without forecasts, its easy to see this is precisely why an eight-team format would have benefited the Pac-12. That conferences winner– particularly this season– is far from a lock to land in the playoff, so even without numbers its evident an ensured area would considerably increase the conferences opportunities.
Sam Ehlinger and the Texas Longhorns advantage most from a College Football Playoff growth, according to our most current simulations. Tim Warner/Getty ImagesUCFs time to shine
In such a way we buried the lead here, since while Texas is the Power 5 winner, the addition of a for-sure Group of 5 spot suggests the overall winner of this whole process is UCF. Our real-life model currently gives the Knights what feels like a positive 28% possibility to reach the playoff– keep in mind that is with our model believing the Pac-12 doesnt exist this year– however that would balloon all the method to 78% in an eight-team system, making them the fourth-most-likely group to reach the playoff.
FPI started the year shockingly high up on the Knights and was just pushed by UCFs blowout win over Georgia Tech. The Knights have an 80% chance to win the American Athletic Conference, which indicates the Allstate Playoff Predictor is telling us: If the committee needs to take a Group of 5 conference champion and UCF is one, the committee will practically always choose UCF. The Knights have nearly no at-large-bid selections in our simulations.
Who else would benefit?
Once again, “advantage” here is a relative term. We need to know, after UCF and Texas, who elses chance to reach the playoff would increase the most. The next 3 teams– Wisconsin, Georgia and Florida, respectively– all fit a mold. In each case, theyre strong playoff-contending teams that play second (or third) fiddle to someone else in the conference. Sure, two SEC or Big Ten groups might get in under the existing format, but its a heck of a lot much easier when there are two slots specifically designated for non-winners. And all 3 of those schools are ideal contenders to be eight-team-playoff-worthy non-contenders.
Who would this have helped the least?
As an outcome, each of our simulations included an unidentified “Pac-12 champion” in the playoff; groups from the Mountain West and MAC might not make the Group of 5 playoff spot; and no Pac-12 teams were granted any at-large quotes. The Longhorns have a 65% possibility to win the conference, but, remember, just a 28% shot at the playoff in real life. The Knights have an 80% opportunity to win the American Athletic Conference, which implies the Allstate Playoff Predictor is informing us: If the committee has to take a Group of 5 conference champ and UCF is one, the committee will practically always select UCF. We want to know, after UCF and Texas, who elses possibility to reach the playoff would increase the many. Thats just not worth it to those groups for the cost of doubling the size of the playoff– making it more difficult to convert a playoff appearance into a nationwide championship.
When Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott recently proposed expanding the 2020 playoff field to eight teams, he likewise was proposing– in such a way– to bring Texas back.
Due to the fact that there is no team in the SEC, ACC, Big 12 or Big Ten that would have benefited more from an eight-team playoff field than the Longhorns, according to the Allstate Playoff Predictor. And it was not close.
To get these projections, we needed to make a couple of presumptions. Since the format of the eight-team choice is not understood, we took a guess that it was the popular 5-2-1 proposal– suggesting all 5 Power 5 conference champs, two at-large quotes, and one Group of 5 champion.2 Related
