Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Playoff models, and how they affect the future of the Big East
Author Message
Borncoog74 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,005
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 229
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #1
Playoff models, and how they affect the future of the Big East
Most of us have been focused on the future media rights deal, and the constant realignment rumors. Those two topics have dominated this board over the past few months. I have been told by someone who I trust explicitly that the TV contract is not the major concern at this point. I have been told a specific $ range under the current members and a 14th, as well as current members +BYU. No point in being specific about that because I can't provide a link, and don't wish to be criticized and picked apart about it.

However, what I have been told about the playoff format does have me concerned. There are currently four possible outcomes sometime after the June 26th meetings.

1. Status Quo
2. Plus One
3. Top 4 only
4. Top 3 conf. champs with top 6 ranking, +1 at large

The top 2 options as far as the Big East is concerned are the 3+1 model, and Status Quo.

1. For obvious reasons the 3+1 will give the Big East a better chance of fielding a playoff team than a straight up top 4. We all know that already. This should be the model that the Big East, ACC, and all other non-Big 4 conferences should be supporting whole heartedly. The PAC and B1G have also shown their support for a champions model. While Notre Dame is a partial member of the Big East, it is unclear where their allegiances lie when it comes to the Playoff format. I doubt they would be in favor of a 3+1, because IMO 9 times out of 10 the +1 is going to go to either the SEC or BIG XII. That format and the Champions Only format would likely leave them out of the Playoff unless they made it to #1-#3

2. Status Quo. Status Quo will continue to give the Big East the same access and slice of the pie as they have before. This "Status Quo" option is not a real option based on what I have been told because the revenue that would be left on the table to continue with the current BCS system would be ridiculously stupid. This option is just being thrown around recently as a negotiating ploy.

The following is just concerned speculation from some non-named AD's:

The most concerning thing that is going on is the re-interest in the "Plus-One" possibility. I was told that there are several AD's and Presidents that believe that this is the true end game. A "good-faith effort" is being placed forward for a playoff, but will eventually just end up in a "Plus-One" for the next 10 years before ultimately going to the 4-team playoff. The reason for this conspiracy suspicion by some is because of the recent commitment by the BIG XII and SEC to place their conference champions in a bowl to be bid on. It is the concern of a few that a "Plus One" model would essentially lock out everybody but the PAC, B1G, SEC, and BIG XII because once their "Champions Bowls" are played there is virtually no chance any other conference will have a member that would still rank higher than the winner of those two games, unless there were a major upset in one of the Champions Bowls. Even though the total money would not be as large as the 4-team playoff, the revenue for the "Plus One" would be still be so large that the share amongst the top 4 conferences could be as good or better, and secured by those top 4 conferences for the next 10 years.

End of speculation from non-named AD's

I have concern over the composition of the BCS Revenue Sharing Sub-Committee

Jim Delany
Mike Slive
John Swofford
Craig Thompson

This is a huge problem for the Big East waiting to happen.
Nothing good is going to come out of this committee for the Big East. Craig Thompson would likely cut off his nose to spite is face if it came to hurting the Big East in some way. And, we know how the other 3 will side. I think there is a reason why there has been this sudden support in the media for the merits of the ACC as still being a Big Boy conference. I believe a deal has been cut with them to continue to support them as a Big Boy conference in exchange for assisting in the relegation of the Big East.

Chuck Neinas had this to say:
"We need them. Absolutely. We've talked about with John Swofford - the other four conferences - to help them find a good bowl for his champion's team. We're not trying to exclude them. We're trying to include them."

Why do they need to "help them" find a bowl for his champions? That should be the concern of the ACC Brass. This statement would lead one to believe that there is something going on here. I think the Power 4 would like to see the Big East have its legs cut out from under them, and are willing to work with the ACC to find another game for their Champions than see the ACC matchup their Champions against the Big East Champion. Why should the Power 4 care if that happens? Is it because of a possible "Plus One"? Because if the Big East and ACC champions are in the Top 10, that could propel the victor into a "Plus One" Championship Game? Who knows for sure, but clearly something is amuck when you see the Commissioner of one conference "trying to help" another conference find a Bowl for its champion.

An additional reason this Playoff Format is more important right now than realignment and the media deal is because this playoff format will determine how much or how little access the Big East will have. The greater the access, the greater the importance and intrigue to the Big East regular season. The greater the importance and intrigue to the Big East regular season, the greater the media deal will be. If the Big East finds itself with a long shot at getting into the playoff (i.e. Top 4 teams, Plus-One) it will have a negative impact on the media deal. How much is uncertain.

It is believed that the 3+1 model is the leader in the clubhouse, but the reemergence of the "Plus-One" being thrown around has raised a few eyebrows. Unless some of the weaker conferences "sell" their playoff vote for a larger cut, then the 3+1 should prevail. It would allow even a Boise/TCU/Utah run to have a chance coming out of the MWC or CUSA.
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2012 01:15 PM by Borncoog74.)
06-04-2012 01:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


CommuterBob Offline
Head Tailgater
*

Posts: 5,840
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 173
I Root For: UCF, Ohio State
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Playoff models, and how they affect the future of the Big East
(06-04-2012 01:08 PM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  2. Status Quo. Status Quo will continue to give the Big East the same access and slice of the pie as they have before. This "Status Quo" option is not a real option based on what I have been told because the revenue that would be left on the table to continue with the current BCS system would be ridiculously stupid. This option is just being thrown around recently as a negotiating ploy.

I wouldn't count on the BE keeping their slice of the pie if the "status quo" were a chosen option. AQ is still dead and the BE has no BCS bowl tie-in. I don't see that changing, unfortunately.

Second, the BE should be hell-bent against any sort of plus-one BS. Without AQ, the BE (nor any non-AQ) is guaranteed ANYTHING in terms of getting a BCS spot. Last year's Sugar Bowl snub of Boise is Exhibit A of what will happen without AQ - the bowls will take who they want to.

The best playoff scenario for the BE is realistically anything that favors conference champions. 3+1 seems to be the only one left to root for at this point, but I think they're going to go with a selection committee. The other issue is less worked over in the press, but has to do with the BCS. The BCS will still exist and may have 4, 5, 6, or even 10 games rolled into it. The BE needs to lobby for the inclusion of teams more or less based on ranking in those games rather than who those bowls want to bring. The only way the BE is going to get a big boy share of the pie is if they can have a highly-ranked team. I doubt the BE will keep any sort of tie-in, so the highly ranked or conference champions need to have favor in the BCS selections for the BE to have a decent chance of getting that slice.
06-04-2012 01:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TripleA Online
Legend
*

Posts: 58,456
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 3153
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: The woods of Bammer

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #3
RE: Playoff models, and how they affect the future of the Big East
I think your concerns are real, but even Slive has said the Plus-One is not good for FB. I'm pretty sure it will be a 4-team playoff, so it'll either be the top 4, or 3 + 1. I agree that the 3 + 1 is better for the BE. Not sure that the Top 4 closes us out, though. Either way, we have to have a team in the top 6, best case, or top 4, worst case.
06-04-2012 01:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ring of Black Offline
Official Person to Blame
*

Posts: 28,421
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 722
I Root For: Cincy Bearcats
Location: Wichita, KS
Post: #4
RE: Playoff models, and how they affect the future of the Big East
It's clear that the only ally the BE has in this is ND.
06-04-2012 01:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Borncoog74 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,005
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 229
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Playoff models, and how they affect the future of the Big East
(06-04-2012 01:32 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  It's clear that the only ally the BE has in this is ND.

I believe they are an ally to the BE when it comes to revenue distribution, but I think our views on the playoff format are different than theirs for the reasons I posted in the OP.
06-04-2012 01:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TripleA Online
Legend
*

Posts: 58,456
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 3153
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: The woods of Bammer

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #6
RE: Playoff models, and how they affect the future of the Big East
It's probably going to be the exception, not the norm, when we place a team in the top 4 or 6, anyway. And if we're good enough, we get in. No guarantees.

I think of more importance to our future is how many bowls remain in the BCS structure, and what access the BE has to them, and what their payouts are. Again, unlike with AQ, where we had a guaranteed seat, we will have no guaranteed tie-ins with major bowls.

However, there are several models being discussed that will include either the top 12, 16 or 20 highest ranked teams, depending on how many bowls are designated as part of the system.

Even without a tie-in, we should have access to those, b/c we usually have more one or more teams ranked that high. The big question is how much money will they pay out, compared to the 4-team playoff. I cannot imagine that even the top 4 conferences will risk a lot of money by not making the playoff, so that means some portion of the distribution will be tied to the other bowls, too.

That helps our position.
06-04-2012 02:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Borncoog74 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,005
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 229
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Playoff models, and how they affect the future of the Big East
(06-04-2012 02:13 PM)TripleA Wrote:  It's probably going to be the exception, not the norm, when we place a team in the top 4 or 6, anyway. And if we're good enough, we get in. No guarantees.

I think of more importance to our future is how many bowls remain in the BCS structure, and what access the BE has to them, and what their payouts are. Again, unlike with AQ, where we had a guaranteed seat, we will have no guaranteed tie-ins with major bowls.

However, there are several models being discussed that will include either the top 12, 16 or 20 highest ranked teams, depending on how many bowls are designated as part of the system.

Even without a tie-in, we should have access to those, b/c we usually have more one or more teams ranked that high. The big question is how much money will they pay out, compared to the 4-team playoff. I cannot imagine that even the top 4 conferences will risk a lot of money by not making the playoff, so that means some portion of the distribution will be tied to the other bowls, too.

That helps our position.

I think some are selling the Big East short if they don't think they can get a team into the top 4. I know we could get a team in the 3+1 format.
Even if it were Top 4, look no further than the BCS years of Boise St. or to a lesser extent Houston last year.

Houston made it to #5-#6 with wins over Tulane, UAB, Rice, North Texas, La Tech, Georgia State, and also to non-world beaters ECU and Marshall. You replace those teams with Cincinatti, Boise St, Louisville, USF, et al..... and Houston would have been ranked in the Top 4.

Same for Boise St. and their WAC schedule.

And, same for any of the current Big East teams. The Big East is adding the winningest football program over the last 10 years, and the Big East is adding a lot of solid depth as well. Louisville could just as easily make it into a Top 4 ranked team playoff if they were to win all of their Eastern Division games and beat a top 15 ranked Houston, and then beat a top 10 ranked Boise St. in the BE Championship game. The benefit of the Championship game to the Big East member SOS's can't be understated. That game is going to help the conference in so many ways....

If the Big East can have multiple teams in the top 25 (which is not out of the question) then there is even a chance that a 1 loss Big East team could make it in on some down years. But with that being said there are probably only 2 conferences (Big XII and SEC) that will be able to place a 1 loss team into the Top 4 ranked team playoff on a consistant basis. So, it is not necessarily a slight on the Big East to not be able to place a 1-loss team into the top 4.
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2012 03:05 PM by Borncoog74.)
06-04-2012 03:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


CardinalJim Online
Welcome to The New Age
*

Posts: 16,476
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 2968
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Staffordsville, KY
Post: #8
RE: Playoff models, and how they affect the future of the Big East
There is simply no scenario that is being publicly discussed that places The Big East in a better position than it was with the AQ. Aside from legal action or congressional action there will be little that The Big East can do to maintain it's position among the Nation's power conferences.

Those that believe Notre Dame is some kind of ally to The Big East in the present situation are naive at best. If Notre Dame wanted to be The Big East's ally they would simply join for all sports and forever solidify The Big East's position. After all if they are Notre Dame. Wouldn't they expect to win The Big East every year anyway? Notre Dame however will not do that. I believe Notre Dame values it's independence more than a clear path to the new play-off that membership in any conference would bring.

The only true ally The Big East has in this is The ACC. Ironic that the conference that caused most of the problems in college football with their insistent greed would be partnered with the victim of their shortsightedness. Unfortunately for The Big East, John Swofford can not be trusted, and presently appears to have less control of his conference's future than Marinatto had of The Big Easts.

Bottom line is The Big East knows it is in a fight for it's path to a championship. The ACC, on the other hand, is still arrogant enough to believe that its football matters. Big East fans have known for nearly a decade that ACC football was God-awful and that was with FSU and Clemson. Looks like the rest of college football has taken notice.
CJ
06-04-2012 03:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TripleA Online
Legend
*

Posts: 58,456
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 3153
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: The woods of Bammer

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #9
RE: Playoff models, and how they affect the future of the Big East
(06-04-2012 03:02 PM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  
(06-04-2012 02:13 PM)TripleA Wrote:  It's probably going to be the exception, not the norm, when we place a team in the top 4 or 6, anyway. And if we're good enough, we get in. No guarantees.

I think of more importance to our future is how many bowls remain in the BCS structure, and what access the BE has to them, and what their payouts are. Again, unlike with AQ, where we had a guaranteed seat, we will have no guaranteed tie-ins with major bowls.

However, there are several models being discussed that will include either the top 12, 16 or 20 highest ranked teams, depending on how many bowls are designated as part of the system.

Even without a tie-in, we should have access to those, b/c we usually have more one or more teams ranked that high. The big question is how much money will they pay out, compared to the 4-team playoff. I cannot imagine that even the top 4 conferences will risk a lot of money by not making the playoff, so that means some portion of the distribution will be tied to the other bowls, too.

That helps our position.

I think some are selling the Big East short if they don't think they can get a team into the top 4. I know we could get a team in the 3+1 format.
Even if it were Top 4, look no further than the BCS years of Boise St. or to a lesser extent Houston last year.

Houston made it to #5-#6 with wins over Tulane, UAB, Rice, North Texas, La Tech, Georgia State, and also to non-world beaters ECU and Marshall. You replace those teams with Cincinatti, Boise St, Louisville, USF, et al..... and Houston would have been ranked in the Top 4.

Same for Boise St. and their WAC schedule.

And, same for any of the current Big East teams. The Big East is adding the winningest football program over the last 10 years, and the Big East is adding a lot of solid depth as well. Louisville could just as easily make it into a Top 4 ranked team playoff if they were to win all of their Eastern Division games and beat a top 15 ranked Houston, and then beat a top 10 ranked Boise St. in the BE Championship game. The benefit of the Championship game to the Big East member SOS's can't be understated. That game is going to help the conference in so many ways....

If the Big East can have multiple teams in the top 25 (which is not out of the question) then there is even a chance that a 1 loss Big East team could make it in on some down years. But with that being said there are probably only 2 conferences (Big XII and SEC) that will be able to place a 1 loss team into the Top 4 ranked team playoff on a consistant basis. So, it is not necessarily a slight on the Big East to not be able to place a 1-loss team into the top 4.
I didn't say the BE couldn't get a team in the playoffs. I said more years than not, they likely wouldn't, that's all. That is not any different than it has ever been.

And I agree with CJ, the new rules are not going to get BETTER for the BE. We lost our guaranteed major bowl seat. Now we have to earn the playoff spot, and earn a major bowl spot, too.
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2012 07:42 PM by TripleA.)
06-04-2012 07:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Mtyler Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 948
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 70
I Root For: MEMPHIS
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Playoff models, and how they affect the future of the Big East
I think people get all worried for nothing. For the most part any system that puts 4 teams playing for a NC will be better than 2. The main reason this playoff was even considered was started with all the griping and complaining in the media about exclusion of the Boise ST and utah's of the world. The potential revenue was discovered after it was initially looked into. The same thing will happen when you get a 4 team playoff consisting of a 2 loss sec,1 loss big 12,2 loss big ten, 1 loss PAC 12 teams and you have an undefeated big east or ACC team out on the side lines. I think ten years from now you will have an 8 or 16 team playoff that will be better for everyone. I think the, by far, biggest hurdle is getting the larger conferences used to the evil word playoff. Once that is done it will be much easier to expand. If they
actually go to a true 4 team playoff there is no way it stays at 4.
06-05-2012 02:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


goodknightfl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,107
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 499
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Playoff models, and how they affect the future of the Big East
(06-05-2012 02:53 AM)Mtyler Wrote:  I think people get all worried for nothing. For the most part any system that puts 4 teams playing for a NC will be better than 2. The main reason this playoff was even considered was started with all the griping and complaining in the media about exclusion of the Boise ST and utah's of the world. The potential revenue was discovered after it was initially looked into. The same thing will happen when you get a 4 team playoff consisting of a 2 loss sec,1 loss big 12,2 loss big ten, 1 loss PAC 12 teams and you have an undefeated big east or ACC team out on the side lines. I think ten years from now you will have an 8 or 16 team playoff that will be better for everyone. I think the, by far, biggest hurdle is getting the larger conferences used to the evil word playoff. Once that is done it will be much easier to expand. If they
actually go to a true 4 team playoff there is no way it stays at 4.

I disagree. The new system is being set up to completely shut out the current non bcs conf, and all but shut out the BE. In the end The games and power will go to the Big 4 with a nugget of $$$ thrown at the ACC.
06-05-2012 06:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,720
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1773
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #12
RE: Playoff models, and how they affect the future of the Big East
Don't shoot the messenger here:

Quote:Under the new proposed playoff, the automatic qualifier status (BCS vs. non-BCS) is eliminated, but Delany said last month that there still would be a system of identifying the major conferences—and the major payouts.

Delany said then that he didn’t expect the Big East to be part of the elite group, but that he didn’t know how many different levels of payouts would eventually come from negotiations.

Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footbal...z1x2zJUMu4
06-06-2012 03:29 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goodknightfl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,107
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 499
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Playoff models, and how they affect the future of the Big East
Exactly. There will be 4 haves, one sort of has, one almost has, and the rest are totally out of the picture.
06-06-2012 03:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CommuterBob Offline
Head Tailgater
*

Posts: 5,840
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 173
I Root For: UCF, Ohio State
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Playoff models, and how they affect the future of the Big East
(06-06-2012 03:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Don't shoot the messenger here:

Quote:Under the new proposed playoff, the automatic qualifier status (BCS vs. non-BCS) is eliminated, but Delany said last month that there still would be a system of identifying the major conferences—and the major payouts.

Delany said then that he didn’t expect the Big East to be part of the elite group, but that he didn’t know how many different levels of payouts would eventually come from negotiations.

Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footbal...z1x2zJUMu4

I read that yesterday, too. My initial thoughts are that the Big 4 are wont to screw the BE out of its big-boy share in order to secure more $$ for themselves. There's been enough poor media perception of the BE to drive home that sentiment over the past few years, but I expect the BE to approach the impending negotiations firmly, but with a consensus-building attitude. They stand to lose the most, and it's not necessarily warranted. The endgame might be such that the BE gets a larger share, but not as large as a tie-in team unless they qualify for a BCS game.
06-06-2012 03:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.