+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: AAC Conference Talk (/forum-409.html)
+---- Thread: Not AAC Related: ACC commish: Why not eight? (/thread-713907.html)
Pages: 1 2
Not AAC Related: ACC commish: Why not eight? - PirateMarv - 11-20-2014 04:13 PM
So it begins.
"ACC commissioner John Swofford thinks eight teams would be an ideal number for a college football playoff.
Swofford, speaking at a Wednesday luncheon at the Durham (N.C.) Sports Club, said eight, "in terms of the number of teams, would probably be ideal" for a playoff, according to the Durham Herald-Sun.
"I don't think all the controversy's going to go away," Swofford said of the four-team College Football Playoff, according to the newspaper. "You have four teams that get a chance to play for the national championship, which is twice as many as before, but whoever's fifth or sixth is not going to be happy. There will be some conferences that won't have a team in the playoff."
Swofford is a member of the College Football Playoff management committee... ."
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11904817/acc-commissioner-john-swofford-8-teams-college-football-playoff
RE: Not AAC Related: ACC commish: Why not eight? - FrancisDrake - 11-20-2014 04:27 PM
The non-entitled 5 need to push hard for a guaranteed spot, even if it is just one for the whole lot. That would be an enormous coup.
RE: Not AAC Related: ACC commish: Why not eight? - CPR - 11-20-2014 04:56 PM
(11-20-2014 04:27 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote: The non-entitled 5 need to push hard for a guaranteed spot, even if it is just one for the whole lot. That would be an enormous coup.
The only way I could see it happening is if there is a stipulation, such as the team needs to be ranked in the top 10-15. If the team is ranked around 20-25, then I don't think they deserve a spot anyways.
RE: Not AAC Related: ACC commish: Why not eight? - LetsGoUC - 11-20-2014 04:58 PM
(11-20-2014 04:27 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote: The non-entitled 5 need to push hard for a guaranteed spot, even if it is just one for the whole lot. That would be an enormous coup.
I LOVE this idea...unfortunately, seems like a pipe dream. However, I think by adding a few more games to the playoffs and making it more of a "March Madness" style bracket you could make it work! Someone from the SunBelt would actually have a (very slim) shot at a title!
Lets say one of those 8 spots is reserved for THE G-5 champ (notice I said THE, not A). Have the G-5 champs play in their own bracket and reserve that 8th spot for that champ. Boom. Playoffs solved.
RE: Not AAC Related: ACC commish: Why not eight? - YNot - 11-20-2014 05:36 PM
(11-20-2014 04:56 PM)CPR Wrote: The only way I could see it happening is if there is a stipulation, such as the team needs to be ranked in the top 10-15. If the team is ranked around 20-25, then I don't think they deserve a spot anyways.
They should have a stipulation that ANY conference champion ranked in the top 10-12 gets a spot. The Autonomy 5 shouldn't get anything automatic. What happens if Georgia Tech loses to Georgia, but then beats FSU in the ACC championship? Georgia Tech would not be a top team. Same scenario with Minnesota in the Big Ten....
The minor conference championship advantage would actually enhance the regular season and better ensure that all regions of the country are involved and interested in the CFP.
RE: Not AAC Related: ACC commish: Why not eight? - mtmedlin - 11-20-2014 05:44 PM
(11-20-2014 04:56 PM)CPR Wrote:(11-20-2014 04:27 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote: The non-entitled 5 need to push hard for a guaranteed spot, even if it is just one for the whole lot. That would be an enormous coup.
The only way I could see it happening is if there is a stipulation, such as the team needs to be ranked in the top 10-15. If the team is ranked around 20-25, then I don't think they deserve a spot anyways.
Thats about the only way it would happen.
I actually think we should push for all conference champions in the P5 plus AAC to get a guranteed spot, plus 2 at large.... and then when that is prompty killed and the SEC stops laughing we then push for a guranteed bowl similar to the orange, rose and Sugar.
Right now the playoff could be done within a rotation of 4 bowls and then have 4 non playoff bowls. The Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, Cotton and Peach are established as the upper most bowls.
The Rose and Sugar are tied to the Pac12/Big10 and the Big12/SEC and pay around $80 million, then the Orange was given to the ACC and the SEC/Big12/Notre Dame and the payout to them is about $40 million (if I am remembering my numbers correctly).
An expanded playoff is gonna make over ahundred million more per year, so they can easily add another bowl. That means 14 teams will make "major bowls". Each of the P5 could get 2 teams in, the AAC could get a guranteed slot and then 1 at large slot. Then two of the P5 conferences would get a third team in... in theory.
If it were me, Id make the Citrus Bowl in Orlando the AACs bowl. If the ACC is worth $40 million, then I dont think its too much to try and get $20 million for the AAC. It currently pays out about $9 million between the two teams, so the college football playoff adding in $31 million to make it a major bowl, isnt a huge amount.... Plus if we were to assure that the ACC #2 (after playoff selection) or SEC #3 (after playoff selection) were invited on rotating years, I think it could work... heck, it could also be Notre Dames backup game. If they dont qualify for the Playoff or the Orange but are in the top 25, then they get this game. Would be fun watching the AAC knock them off occasionally.
RE: Not AAC Related: ACC commish: Why not eight? - Rabbit_in_Red - 11-20-2014 09:20 PM
I think there's already a lot of steam supporting the idea of an 8 team playoff. Five conference champions, highest ranked member of the Gang of 5, and two wild cards. That's what would be the most fair, IMO.
RE: Not AAC Related: ACC commish: Why not eight? - mtmedlin - 11-20-2014 10:49 PM
(11-20-2014 09:20 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote: I think there's already a lot of steam supporting the idea of an 8 team playoff. Five conference champions, highest ranked member of the Gang of 5, and two wild cards. That's what would be the most fair, IMO.
I am more concerned with the big bowls outside of the playoffs. All of the P5 have their own bowl and the lowest pays $40 million.
My idea above is pretty solid but we might try to go a bit further to build support. Why not upgrade the Citrus and the Cactus bowl. Citrus would be AAC vs Big10/SEC/Notre Dame and the Cactus could be the MWC vs the Pac12/B12/BYU.
The expanded playoff could be worth upwards of an additional $200 million. Asking for 1 playoff spot for all the G5 and then two Bowls (AAC and MWC) that pay about $20-24 million isnt an insane request. They could then add $30 million to the G5 payout and The other $130 million will more then likely go to the P5.
I think its time that the AAC and MWC make a case for being quite a bit ahead of the Sunblet, MAC and CUSA.
RE: Not AAC Related: ACC commish: Why not eight? - FrancisDrake - 11-21-2014 08:38 AM
The G-5 needs a plan. As mentioned above, you've got to ask for more than you expect to get so that the powers-that-be settle on what we want. If I'm the MWC and the AAC I'd push for all conference champs are at the very least our conference champs to also have auto bids with the expectation that we'll settle for 1 auto bid for the entire G5. The bowls still have a lot of power and we just have to wait them out. I think the playoff will expand to 8 in relative short order, the bowls will push to host those playoff games and in doing so cut their own throats. You cannot ask or expect fans to spend that kind of money week after week. Attendance will fall as fans wait and save their money for advanced rounds.
RE: Not AAC Related: ACC commish: Why not eight? - AGuyIn_Water - 11-21-2014 08:49 AM
Eight is a horrible idea. Not even close
RE: Not AAC Related: ACC commish: Why not eight? - blunderbuss - 11-21-2014 08:53 AM
(11-20-2014 04:56 PM)CPR Wrote:(11-20-2014 04:27 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote: The non-entitled 5 need to push hard for a guaranteed spot, even if it is just one for the whole lot. That would be an enormous coup.
The only way I could see it happening is if there is a stipulation, such as the team needs to be ranked in the top 10-15. If the team is ranked around 20-25, then I don't think they deserve a spot anyways.
They'll rig the CFP voting just like they're doing right now.
RE: Not AAC Related: ACC commish: Why not eight? - RIFRAF - 11-21-2014 09:04 AM
Believe me, the only reason Swofford is saying this is the ACC has little chance of being in the 4 team playoff unless they go undefeated, like FSU. If they go to a eight team playoff the ACC has a better chance and he will have no sympathy for any G5 team who argues the playoff needs to go to 16 teams to make sure all D1 conferences have representation. When it is to his advantage he is all for one and one for all....do not trust him.
RE: Not AAC Related: ACC commish: Why not eight? - 3601 - 11-21-2014 09:58 AM
Anybody with a brain knew this would happen. The playoff will expand beyond 4...it is merely a matter of when and not if. I'm certain it will happen when the contract expires. I won't be surprised if the current contract is amended before that.
RE: Not AAC Related: ACC commish: Why not eight? - UofMstateU - 11-21-2014 10:10 AM
(11-21-2014 09:04 AM)RIFRAF Wrote: Believe me, the only reason Swofford is saying this is the ACC has little chance of being in the 4 team playoff unless they go undefeated, like FSU. If they go to a eight team playoff the ACC has a better chance and he will have no sympathy for any G5 team who argues the playoff needs to go to 16 teams to make sure all D1 conferences have representation. When it is to his advantage he is all for one and one for all....do not trust him.
Yep.
They are already seeing an undefeated FSU team getting pushed down, and an undefeated Marshall unranked. The ACC sees the writing on the wall for them. They could go undefeated and still not land in the top 4, so making the 4 team playoff becomes about as much of a pipe dream as it would the AAC.
RE: Not AAC Related: ACC commish: Why not eight? - Gray Avenger - 11-21-2014 10:31 AM
(11-20-2014 04:27 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote: The non-entitled 5 need to push hard for a guaranteed spot, even if it is just one for the whole lot. That would be an enormous coup.
Absolutely. It is extremely important (and proper) for the highest ranked G5 champion to have a place in the playoff. Of course, I imagine, the P5 think it is equally important that we don't. Those whose chief aim is separation certainly don't want the G5 to have any chance of winning the championship. Hopefully, ESPN would favor the Cinderella angle.
RE: Not AAC Related: ACC commish: Why not eight? - Rabbit_in_Red - 11-21-2014 11:48 AM
Personally, I'm loving the idea of two or maybe even three SEC teams getting into the playoffs. It's the only way the other conferences will get annoyed enough to change things up to the plan I presented. Also, it benefits all of the P5 conferences because it places more emphasis on our CCGs which would increase their ratings/ticket sales/ect. because of the increase in importance. G5 conferences would benefit because then there's always going to be at least one G5 school, maybe more depending on how you structured the Wild Card selection, so there's more incentive for G5 schools to invest and play harder schedules ect.... The 4 major bowls (Orange, Sugar, Rose, Fiesta) would jump on board because with 8 teams, each bowl would host a major playoff game...
RE: Not AAC Related: ACC commish: Why not eight? - FrancisDrake - 11-21-2014 11:49 AM
(11-21-2014 08:49 AM)AGuyIn_Water Wrote: Eight is a horrible idea. Not even close
But its what will be, at least initially. It fits the current "big" bowl structure. There are six total, just the right # for an elite eight and a final four. The bowls will save face, the entitled 5 get auto bids, the TV bid for the rights goes up, the best we can hope for is that our "access" spot remains.
RE: Not AAC Related: ACC commish: Why not eight? - Rabbit_in_Red - 11-21-2014 11:50 AM
Whether it's the ACC, B1G, PAC12, or BigXII that gets left out, those conferences are going to get awfully tired of the SEC always taking two or three spots.
RE: Not AAC Related: ACC commish: Why not eight? - Bearcat61 - 11-21-2014 02:19 PM
But what happens when the G-5 champ is almost always slotted with a bad seed at #8 seed and constantly plays the #1 seed (Alabama and the like)? Me thinks a 4 team playoff and 1 access for the highest ranked G-5 in a major bowl is better for now.
RE: Not AAC Related: ACC commish: Why not eight? - Attackcoog - 11-21-2014 08:43 PM
(11-20-2014 04:56 PM)CPR Wrote:(11-20-2014 04:27 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote: The non-entitled 5 need to push hard for a guaranteed spot, even if it is just one for the whole lot. That would be an enormous coup.
The only way I could see it happening is if there is a stipulation, such as the team needs to be ranked in the top 10-15. If the team is ranked around 20-25, then I don't think they deserve a spot anyways.
The problem with a stipulation like you describe is that with the current P5 dominated membership of the selection committee, there is an incredibly ridiculous level of anti-G5 bias that would preclude a G5 team regardless of record of ever climbing high enough in such a rigged poll. Its the equivalent of placing all eastern European judges in the 1980's olympic ice skating competition. With 65 teams, 90% of the time the G5 representative will be a dangerous and competitive team. Its not like there are not going to be a crappy off year champ emerging from a power conference every so often. One guaranteed slot for nearly 50% of the FBS members is a reasonable and necessary requirement to make the 8 team playoff legitimate. Look at it as treating the entire G5 as one gigantic 65 team conference that represent probably 20-30% of all college football fans. I doubt any existing power conference has that large a percentage of the total college football fanbase.