(12-18-2013 08:07 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 12:08 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 12:41 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 11:00 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 08:08 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The current trend of playoff games replacing bowl games would continue into an 8 team playoff most likely.

Yes but the evolution of the P5 to a P4 is the first step in mandating an 8 team playoff....

Why? With the cycles set up for 6 years/6 bowls its going to take another massive realignment before the powers that be are going to want to move to 8 years/8 bowls/8 team playoff. The system has to be broke before its fixed and right now its standing is fixed.

The next big shakeup probably is going to be when the B12 TV rights are up in 10 years. Likely at least 2 cylcles of 6 years/6 bowls and maybe more.

In 12 years you could have 8 conferences with 16-20 teams each....

P4 (PAC, SEC, B1G, ACC)
G4 (B12, MWC, CUSA, MAC)

The AAC and the SBC may not survive. The AAC is positioned for potential raiding by the B12 with the scraps headed to MWC/CUSA. The SBC could be put out of business by CUSA/MAC if those leagues moved to 16-18 teams quickly.

You are preaching to the choir when it comes to talking to me about there being major realignment before we get the 8 team tournament. The Networks will absolutely want the expanded tournament, they probably already do. The Conferences most wanting expansion can easily hold that progress up until the Network open up their wallets for expansion.

I think the AAC survives and becomes the premier mid-major with additions from the MWC. I think the SBC will still survive. It may be in the same division with the Majors, it may end up below. I think the MAC will be in similar position. CUSA may be a step above or it may get raided into similar standing as the rest.

I don't think anyone is waiting 10 years for any of this to happen.

Another perspective to think about; how long did it take the BCS system to officially wear out its welcome?

It was 16 years for a system that was considered flawed from the start but more importantly 4 bowl cycles; 1998-2001, 2002-2005, 2006-2009, 2010-2013 before it was in the grave.

I'm not entirely convinced their are any flaws in the new system. The only one that I could possibly see is 2 loss P5 schools screwed out of CFP bowls. I question the legality of returning to an autobid system within the construct of an 8 team playoff. There is technically no autobids in the new CFP system, just a couple of contracts for the big guys.

Four bowl cycles of the CFP would have the present system operating for 24 years. With the advent of al la carte programing. digital streaming and the fact that P5 TV deal valuations are brushing up against those of professional sports there isn't going to be another x5 multipler in P5 and postseason value like there was this time around.

I do think leagues will be going bigger just to maintain their enormous TV contracts. The G5 will continue to be a willing junior partner in the process. Instead of schools being pushed down I could see movement that leaves ULM and Idaho behind with the SBC/MAC combining. Instead of a slew of new moveups from FCS to FBS it makes sense for the SBC/MAC to combine and cut out the middle man (of course after CUSA takes some of the best programs).

I don't see how the AAC is going to make post another round of realignment. They should be bulking up to 16 just to be safe, IMO.

I agree with you on much of this. In terms of the BCS taking awhile to be changed, I do agree but at the same time that is not proof positive that it would take the same amount of time to move from a 4 team playoff to an 8 team playoff. It is two entirely different movements. It is much more complicated and difficult to eradicate one system and move on to another. You have entrenched power bases that were heavily involved in the BCS system. Basically we had to have a public landslide of opinions pushing for the tournament which then pushed the Networks into it because it was obvious money.

The money has reached that tipping point where change is suddenly happening.

In regards to autobids, you are probably right but in order for an autobid to happen, it doesn't have to be specifically laid out that conference champions are autobids. If it is the opinion of the committee members that such a championship should be weighed heavily then that is the same thing as having a statute stating that conference champions get an autobid but instead there is no method of litigating against that opinion because that is what the Committee is there to do.

It will likely happen one way or another, conference champions will get preference because of the risk involved in having them. Only the Big 12 doesn't have one, which is why they are so loud and boisterous in their public ranting about how conference championships should not be looked upon so heavily. They have even moved to talking points about how they should be allowed to have a conference championship with just 10 teams. They showed us all their hand and also what they know is inevitable. They know they will need a conference championship game soon.

No, they just want the choice to make easy money.

(12-18-2013 06:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 10:45 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Things the new system does not address:

1) An autobid to the playoff for all P5 conferences. For at least 20 years the suggestion has been out there to take the Top 4 schools into a mini playoff to see who is really deserving. That idea is as old as the mountains.

There have been some suggestions of a 16 team traditional playoff model of and on so every conference would get an automatic bid. Never has a model such as all 6 BCS conferences be invited to an 8 team playoff been discussed. The discussion has been centered around deserving teams, not deserving conferences for a mini-playoff. It just always has been that way.

I highly disagree with that statement. Maybe the 16-team model was discussed more in non-power conference circles because it would benefit them, but an 8-team playoff with the power conferences all receiving auto-bids has been discussed much more in reality. Just look at the OP's original article and even look at this article from last year right after the 4-team playoff was announced:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...ight-teams

The key part of that article:

Quote:"I know we're saying four teams for 12 years," Thompson said. "But I don't see it as a four-team playoff for 12 years. I just don't see it. If there is success with four, I think we will go to what is most ideal, which is eight. That would double the access points."

Thompson sees access in the new system as double-edged. On one hand, four teams instead of two have a chance to compete for the national title. But on the other, there are expected to be no provisions guaranteeing a highly ranked champion from a non-traditional power conference will make a top-tier bowl.

"History has shown that TCU twice and perhaps Utah would have made it into those four," Thompson said. "Those teams just needed the opportunity to show they could compete with anybody."

Thompson envisions a playoff with five guaranteed spots for power conferences and three spots for everyone to compete for.

That's Craig Thompson, the commissioner of the MWC, a non-power conference, stating this. Even he realizes that this is the most realistic path to playoff expansion.

Craig Thompson has no power.

The chorus for an 8 team playoff has grown from .01% of coaches and administrators a few years ago to maybe 5% but still infinitesimally small for the purposes of having momentum to make it 8 teams or more happen.

Models like 8 and 16 were kicked around last year. TV said no to it. The bowls said no to it. Logistically going beyond 4 is tough to pull off because its a 3 weekend ordeal. If you make the bowls part of the system and retain a 6 bowl/12 participant format then 3/4 of the time the Rose Bowl will have to vacate PAC/B1G ties for playoff seeding. Its not undoable but its going to cause the Rose to sway even further from tradition.

(12-19-2013 10:45 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Craig Thompson has no power.

The chorus for an 8 team playoff has grown from .01% of coaches and administrators a few years ago to maybe 5% but still infinitesimally small for the purposes of having momentum to make it 8 teams or more happen.

Models like 8 and 16 were kicked around last year. TV said no to it. The bowls said no to it. Logistically going beyond 4 is tough to pull off because its a 3 weekend ordeal. If you make the bowls part of the system and retain a 6 bowl/12 participant format then 3/4 of the time the Rose Bowl will have to vacate PAC/B1G ties for playoff seeding. Its not undoable but its going to cause the Rose to sway even further from tradition.

The big impetus to change that I see on the horizon is that there is a guarantee that at least one power conference that's going to be shut out of the playoff every year. This season, the Big 12 and Pac-12 likely would have been shut out, and last year, you likely would have seen the Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC all shut out. That might work in the beginning, but I believe that's going to cause a lot of consternation after the system is employed for a few years. There may end up being a stigma attached to a power conference not participating in the 4-team playoff that didn't exist for the #1 vs. #2 game in the BCS system.

At the same time, I don't think that 6 bowl/12 participant format would continue in its current form. As I've said elsewhere, the 8-team playoff using the bowls is simple: make the Rose Bowl into the Big Ten champ vs. Pac-12 champ permanently as a quarterfinal. Period. Give 3 other bowls their traditional tie-ins (like Sugar with the SEC, Orange with the ACC, and one of either the Cotton or Fiesta with the Big 12) and make them permanent quarterfinals with at-large bids slotted accordingly. On top of that, 2, 4 or even 6 additional bowls could become the equivalent of the access bowls now with the perk of being slotted to host semifinal games and/or the national championship on a rotation basis.

To me, the seal has been broken with respect to a multi-game playoff. That is what made the 4-team playoff so difficult to implement. With that seal broken, the move from 4 to 8 will end up being much quicker (IMHO) because the financial incentives are there and the access would still be tight enough where the power conferences are able to maintain their power (which, like it or not, is what MUST happen for any playoff format to get passed).

6 might be better than 8 since it would reward the 2 highest teams from the regular season/conference champions with a bye. In the case of 6 team playoffs, 2 teams would get a bye and go into the semifinal bowls pretty much the way it is setup right now. The other 4 teams could play the week after the conference champ games. I would think the best setup would be on campus of the higher seed given all the travel of the playoff system. The winners from that setup would go face the 2 teams who got a bye in the semifinal bowl games. The 2 losers could have a designed bowl game as a consolation prize. 6 team playoff would allow champions of the p5 leagues to get auto bids with one at large for ND/other. They probably would require a top 10 finish to get an auto bid for conference champ. I do think you see either further conference moves or expanded playoffs.

(12-19-2013 11:06 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 10:45 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Craig Thompson has no power.

The chorus for an 8 team playoff has grown from .01% of coaches and administrators a few years ago to maybe 5% but still infinitesimally small for the purposes of having momentum to make it 8 teams or more happen.

Models like 8 and 16 were kicked around last year. TV said no to it. The bowls said no to it. Logistically going beyond 4 is tough to pull off because its a 3 weekend ordeal. If you make the bowls part of the system and retain a 6 bowl/12 participant format then 3/4 of the time the Rose Bowl will have to vacate PAC/B1G ties for playoff seeding. Its not undoable but its going to cause the Rose to sway even further from tradition.

The big impetus to change that I see on the horizon is that there is a guarantee that at least one power conference that's going to be shut out of the playoff every year. This season, the Big 12 and Pac-12 likely would have been shut out, and last year, you likely would have seen the Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC all shut out. That might work in the beginning, but I believe that's going to cause a lot of consternation after the system is employed for a few years. There may end up being a stigma attached to a power conference not participating in the 4-team playoff that didn't exist for the #1 vs. #2 game in the BCS system.

At the same time, I don't think that 6 bowl/12 participant format would continue in its current form. As I've said elsewhere, the 8-team playoff using the bowls is simple: make the Rose Bowl into the Big Ten champ vs. Pac-12 champ permanently as a quarterfinal. Period. Give 3 other bowls their traditional tie-ins (like Sugar with the SEC, Orange with the ACC, and one of either the Cotton or Fiesta with the Big 12) and make them permanent quarterfinals with at-large bids slotted accordingly. On top of that, 2, 4 or even 6 additional bowls could become the equivalent of the access bowls now with the perk of being slotted to host semifinal games and/or the national championship on a rotation basis.

To me, the seal has been broken with respect to a multi-game playoff. That is what made the 4-team playoff so difficult to implement. With that seal broken, the move from 4 to 8 will end up being much quicker (IMHO) because the financial incentives are there and the access would still be tight enough where the power conferences are able to maintain their power (which, like it or not, is what MUST happen for any playoff format to get passed).

A couple of points:

-The current system has just done away with autobids. As a compromise the B1G, PAC, SEC, ACC and B12 were allowed to have "contracts" in place with their historic tie-ins. Some would say this is nothing more than an autobid under a different name. I disagree because instead of certain conferences automatically being part of the system and others not, any conference such as the MAC or MWC has nothing stopping it from signing a contract short of of crappy performance and fan support. Therefore autobids would be viewed as a step backwards.

-The Rose was willing to give up its B1G-PAC matchup (once every 3 years) for a seeded playoff. What you are talking about is an 8 team unseeded playoff with autobids. I agree in that it may be the only way to make an 8 team playoff work, however an unseeded model is a step back from a seeded model and a seeded 8 team would be a disaster from the Rose perspective unless you went to a 12 team/24 participant system where only 4 bowls had to host the quarterfinals every year.

-After looking at the Harris Poll data from 2005-2013 as to how many 10-2 or better P5's would be left out annually in the system, the average is only slightly greater than 2. Moving beyond 6 bowls/12 participants therefore is going to be nothing more than watering down the field. Nobody between TV, P5s and G5s wants the CFP field watered down. Even the G5 schools would rather have 1 participant in a 6 bowl system than 2 participants in a 12 bowl system with schools stuck playing P5's in the lower half of the Top 25.

(12-19-2013 11:28 AM)bluesox Wrote:  6 might be better than 8 since it would reward the 2 highest teams from the regular season/conference champions with a bye. In the case of 6 team playoffs, 2 teams would get a bye and go into the semifinal bowls pretty much the way it is setup right now. The other 4 teams could play the week after the conference champ games. I would think the best setup would be on campus of the higher seed given all the travel of the playoff system. The winners from that setup would go face the 2 teams who got a bye in the semifinal bowl games. The 2 losers could have a designed bowl game as a consolation prize. 6 team playoff would allow champions of the p5 leagues to get auto bids with one at large for ND/other. They probably would require a top 10 finish to get an auto bid for conference champ. I do think you see either further conference moves or expanded playoffs.

That is a good idea because you could fit this model into the 6 team/12 participant system since there would be 2 bye games for the first week. Keep it a seeded model and the Rose will only have to abdicate 1 out of 3 years.

If P5 evolves into a P4 through a major realignment in 12 years, ensuring all 4 power conferences have a seat at the table makes more sense, plus a guaranteed spot for the highest ranked G5/Independent and another at large spot for an 11-1 type SEC team that didn't win their conference.

More realistic for the networks because then all they are on the hook to buy is 2 neutral semifinal spots to go along with the neutral national title game. That might be worth jacking up rights fees another 100%. Adding BCS bowls for schools in the lower half of the Top 25 isn't going to move the needle, IMO.

We'll see a 8 team playoff system in a few years.

5 Conference Champions from the P5.
3 At Large. Non-P5 Champion Auto-Bid if ranked higher than a Conference Champion from the P5, or ranked in the Top 10.

This way the P5 conferences all have at least one team in it.

First and Second rounds will be home games for the higher seeds.
Finals of course at a pre-determined location.

Having the "BCS" Bowls host Semis is just dumb IMO.

Let the BCS Bowls be for the "best of the rest."

(12-19-2013 12:02 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  A couple of points:

-The current system has just done away with autobids. As a compromise the B1G, PAC, SEC, ACC and B12 were allowed to have "contracts" in place with their historic tie-ins. Some would say this is nothing more than an autobid under a different name. I disagree because instead of certain conferences automatically being part of the system and others not, any conference such as the MAC or MWC has nothing stopping it from signing a contract short of of crappy performance and fan support. Therefore autobids would be viewed as a step backwards.

-The Rose was willing to give up its B1G-PAC matchup (once every 3 years) for a seeded playoff. What you are talking about is an 8 team unseeded playoff with autobids. I agree in that it may be the only way to make an 8 team playoff work, however an unseeded model is a step back from a seeded model and a seeded 8 team would be a disaster from the Rose perspective unless you went to a 12 team/24 participant system where only 4 bowls had to host the quarterfinals every year.

-After looking at the Harris Poll data from 2005-2013 as to how many 10-2 or better P5's would be left out annually in the system, the average is only slightly greater than 2. Moving beyond 6 bowls/12 participants therefore is going to be nothing more than watering down the field. Nobody between TV, P5s and G5s wants the CFP field watered down. Even the G5 schools would rather have 1 participant in a 6 bowl system than 2 participants in a 12 bowl system with schools stuck playing P5's in the lower half of the Top 25.

Call them contracts or auto-bids - the point is that they're guaranteed slots for the power conferences that are the same going forward in the CFP as they were in the BCS. That aspect hasn't changed at all, so I don't see auto-bids being a step backwards. It's just shuffling the same schools that would have otherwise participated in the CFP bowls into an 8-team playoff.

I'll also have to heavily beg to differ about the TV people - they absolutely would LOVE an 8-team playoff. You're telling me that they'd rather have the current system compared to (a) every power conference championship game being a de facto playoff game, (b) the 4 top bowls on or around New Years Day being do-or-die quarterfinal playoff games as opposed to largely a slate of consolation games and © semifinals and a national championship game after all of that? The Big Ten and Pac-12 are receiving $40 million each for each non-playoff consolation Rose Bowl game. Can you imagine what that would be worth if that was a guaranteed playoff game every year? It's not even a debate in terms of potential TV money here.

The "dilution" that the TV networks fear is that too many non-power conference teams make it into the playoff - what's endearing in basketball for the NCAA Tournament is not attractive for football for TV purposes. The "dilution" that the power conferences fear is more about that the value of their respective regular seasons going down if the playoff becomes NCAA Tournament-like. I still think 8 teams is far from a saturation point, especially if each power conference champ is guaranteed a slot (as that makes a whole lot more power conference games much more meaningful on the national front than the hyper focus on the top 4 or 5 teams in the country that we have right now). I have a hard time seeing how the Group of Five would consider "dilution" to be an issue - they're more likely concerned about what type of access that they'd be receiving more than anything (and the larger the playoff, the more opportunity that they have for access).

(12-19-2013 12:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 12:02 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  A couple of points:

-The current system has just done away with autobids. As a compromise the B1G, PAC, SEC, ACC and B12 were allowed to have "contracts" in place with their historic tie-ins. Some would say this is nothing more than an autobid under a different name. I disagree because instead of certain conferences automatically being part of the system and others not, any conference such as the MAC or MWC has nothing stopping it from signing a contract short of of crappy performance and fan support. Therefore autobids would be viewed as a step backwards.

-The Rose was willing to give up its B1G-PAC matchup (once every 3 years) for a seeded playoff. What you are talking about is an 8 team unseeded playoff with autobids. I agree in that it may be the only way to make an 8 team playoff work, however an unseeded model is a step back from a seeded model and a seeded 8 team would be a disaster from the Rose perspective unless you went to a 12 team/24 participant system where only 4 bowls had to host the quarterfinals every year.

-After looking at the Harris Poll data from 2005-2013 as to how many 10-2 or better P5's would be left out annually in the system, the average is only slightly greater than 2. Moving beyond 6 bowls/12 participants therefore is going to be nothing more than watering down the field. Nobody between TV, P5s and G5s wants the CFP field watered down. Even the G5 schools would rather have 1 participant in a 6 bowl system than 2 participants in a 12 bowl system with schools stuck playing P5's in the lower half of the Top 25.

Call them contracts or auto-bids - the point is that they're guaranteed slots for the power conferences that are the same going forward in the CFP as they were in the BCS. That aspect hasn't changed at all, so I don't see auto-bids being a step backwards. It's just shuffling the same schools that would have otherwise participated in the CFP bowls into an 8-team playoff.

I'll also have to heavily beg to differ about the TV people - they absolutely would LOVE an 8-team playoff. You're telling me that they'd rather have the current system compared to (a) every power conference championship game being a de facto playoff game, (b) the 4 top bowls on or around New Years Day being do-or-die quarterfinal playoff games as opposed to largely a slate of consolation games and © semifinals and a national championship game after all of that? The Big Ten and Pac-12 are receiving $40 million each for each non-playoff consolation Rose Bowl game. Can you imagine what that would be worth if that was a guaranteed playoff game every year? It's not even a debate in terms of potential TV money here.

The "dilution" that the TV networks fear is that too many non-power conference teams make it into the playoff - what's endearing in basketball for the NCAA Tournament is not attractive for football for TV purposes. The "dilution" that the power conferences fear is more about that the value of their respective regular seasons going down if the playoff becomes NCAA Tournament-like. I still think 8 teams is far from a saturation point, especially if each power conference champ is guaranteed a slot (as that makes a whole lot more power conference games much more meaningful on the national front than the hyper focus on the top 4 or 5 teams in the country that we have right now).

-The legality of contract bowls are different than autobids, even if they de facto serve the same purpose.

-With college football valuations for the postseason and power conference now on par with professional sports I question how much higher in TV value for these properties can go. Certainly not the 300% to 500% increase in value we witnessed across all major properties last time around. That may but the breaks on post season expansion.

-Dilution is perceived as a BAD whether its accepting P5 or G5 schools in the lower half of the standings into the postseason. Boise State proved that a G5 can blow up nationally participating in these bowls and negate the small conference factor. I'm sure UCF or Houston or whoever is the next darling will do the same thing.

(12-19-2013 12:35 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  -The legality of contract bowls are different than autobids, even if they de facto serve the same purpose.

Not really. The BCS AQ "autobids" were conference contracts just as they were now with the exception of the Big East. Note that the Big East was the only AQ conference subject to the BCS rankings criteria because the other power conferences had contracts in place with their respective bowl tie-ins. (Look at the BCS AQ criteria - it refers to conferences having contracts with BCS bowls as being locked-in.) If anything, the CFP removed any merit-based ability for a non-power conference to move up to the next power level - it's all purely based on whether the bowl market will pay for a particular conference now.

Quote:-With college football valuations for the postseason and power conference now on par with professional sports I question how much higher in TV value for these properties can go. Certainly not the 300% to 500% increase in value we witnessed across all major properties last time around. That may but the breaks on post season expansion.

Possibly, but I simply don't think we're there yet with respect to college football at all because they've actually artificially capped their value up until very recently. If anything, college football is only now getting to the point where its TV rights are reflecting its true value in the marketplace (which is that it's consistently the top-rated spectator sport in America after the NFL). This is especially the case with the most-watched games, as there are fewer and fewer programs anywhere that can draw large audiences in one place at one time, which is why playoff events specifically are disproportionately valuable. Consolation Rose Bowl games have still been getting around 10.0 ratings (which is as high as any sporting event that isn't an NFL game). If that goes up to, say, a 15.0 by being a playoff game every year, then it's not just 50% more valuable - it's 100% or 200% more valuable (or even higher) because there's a massive extra premium attached to any TV program that can draw an audience which is that large.

Quote:-Dilution is perceived as a BAD whether its accepting P5 or G5 schools in the lower half of the standings into the postseason. Boise State proved that a G5 can blow up nationally participating in these bowls and negate the small conference factor. I'm sure UCF or Houston or whoever is the next darling will do the same thing.

I'm not quite sure what the argument is here. We're already at the point where we're parsing teams with the exact same records and making subjective opinions about them. Isn't the argument that we've heard ad nauseum for years is that we want to remove the poll-based rankings from the equation as much as possible so that "it's determined on-the-field"? If you win a power conference, then that's a massive accomplishment in this day and age that deserves more than a consolation bowl. At the same time, there's a recognition that there are other deserving teams (i.e. an elite Boise State or other Gang of Five team, independents, top teams that didn't win their conference) that deserve a shot, too.

Now, if your overall point is that there inertia in the system where college sports leaders are simply very resistant to change in general and just getting to a 4-team playoff was hard enough, then I agree. However, we'll just have to agree to disagree with respect to the TV people - they are very willing to pay a TON of cash for an 8-team playoff in the way that I've described, and there's only so long that revenue-starved universities (even among those within the power conference ranks) are going to leave that cash on the table when it's fairly easy to expand to 8 without much disruption to the current system (and may actually enhance the top bowls like the Rose Bowl back to the stature where they once were on an annual basis and not just i2 out of every 3 years).

(12-19-2013 01:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 12:35 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  -The legality of contract bowls are different than autobids, even if they de facto serve the same purpose.

Not really. The BCS AQ "autobids" were conference contracts just as they were now with the exception of the Big East. Note that the Big East was the only AQ conference subject to the BCS rankings criteria because the other power conferences had contracts in place with their respective bowl tie-ins. (Look at the BCS AQ criteria - it refers to conferences having contracts with BCS bowls as being locked-in.) If anything, the CFP removed any merit-based ability for a non-power conference to move up to the next power level - it's all purely based on whether the bowl market will pay for a particular conference now.

Quote:-With college football valuations for the postseason and power conference now on par with professional sports I question how much higher in TV value for these properties can go. Certainly not the 300% to 500% increase in value we witnessed across all major properties last time around. That may but the breaks on post season expansion.

Possibly, but I simply don't think we're there yet with respect to college football at all because they've actually artificially capped their value up until very recently. If anything, college football is only now getting to the point where its TV rights are reflecting its true value in the marketplace (which is that it's consistently the top-rated spectator sport in America after the NFL). This is especially the case with the most-watched games, as there are fewer and fewer programs anywhere that can draw large audiences in one place at one time, which is why playoff events specifically are disproportionately valuable. Consolation Rose Bowl games have still been getting around 10.0 ratings (which is as high as any sporting event that isn't an NFL game). If that goes up to, say, a 15.0 by being a playoff game every year, then it's not just 50% more valuable - it's 100% or 200% more valuable (or even higher) because there's a massive extra premium attached to any TV program that can draw an audience which is that large.

Quote:-Dilution is perceived as a BAD whether its accepting P5 or G5 schools in the lower half of the standings into the postseason. Boise State proved that a G5 can blow up nationally participating in these bowls and negate the small conference factor. I'm sure UCF or Houston or whoever is the next darling will do the same thing.

I'm not quite sure what the argument is here. We're already at the point where we're parsing teams with the exact same records and making subjective opinions about them. Isn't the argument that we've heard ad nauseum for years is that we want to remove the poll-based rankings from the equation as much as possible so that "it's determined on-the-field"? If you win a power conference, then that's a massive accomplishment in this day and age that deserves more than a consolation bowl. At the same time, there's a recognition that there are other deserving teams (i.e. an elite Boise State or other Gang of Five team, independents, top teams that didn't win their conference) that deserve a shot, too.

Now, if your overall point is that there inertia in the system where college sports leaders are simply very resistant to change in general and just getting to a 4-team playoff was hard enough, then I agree. However, we'll just have to agree to disagree with respect to the TV people - they are very willing to pay a TON of cash for an 8-team playoff in the way that I've described, and there's only so long that revenue-starved universities (even among those within the power conference ranks) are going to leave that cash on the table when it's fairly easy to expand to 8 without much disruption to the current system (and may actually enhance the top bowls like the Rose Bowl back to the stature where they once were on an annual basis and not just i2 out of every 3 years).

More points:

-The bowl alliance started when a few big conferences decided that it was in their best interest to align the bowls together for the post season. At the outset 20 years ago there was no access to the system for conferences and ND outside for the arrangement. Absolutely none.

Then there was a Top 6 rule starting with the BCS as BYU complained it was unfair not to have any access. None of the schools could make the access point for 8 years so they lowered the bar to Top 12/Top 16 and then put in "performance rules" that allowed a conference such as the MWC to play its way in. This was a great advancement.

The CFP wasn't driven by a small cabal of conferences in a smoke filled room like the Bowl Alliance. Commissioners from all 10 FBS conferences participated in its formation. The system is 6 bowls/12 participants with a few market place contracts signed by the P5 and ND. The only autobid in the system is the one given to the highest ranked G5 champion. The MAC, MWC, CUSA, AAC, SBC are free to sign contracts with the CFP bowls. That was not allowed before. Before a conference had to earn its way it through outstanding play. Now they can buy their way in just like any power conference.

Who is to say the AAC couldn't bulk up to 20 schools and be able to get a contract in the Cotton Bowl for 2020? Its entirely permissible. Then the 32 or so remaining G5 could organize into 1 super conference (MAC, CUSA, MWC) that would have a leg up on the AQ spot while chopping the Idaho's, EMU's and ULM's out of it.

-I think its possible that with a 6 team playoff described by Bluesox that added 1st round bye and two more national semifinal locations could pop the valuation in another 6 years by 100%. Moving from a 7 game postseason format to a 9 game postseason format would create value. Another 200% or 300% blow up I just don't see in 6 years. In 12 years if a 6 team playoff has worked then maybe an 8 years.

The problem I see with posters is they've become comfortable with the idea of "look-ins" which they think can be triggered by 2 additions in the course of 2 years time. The CFP contract is for 12 years and 2 cycles. There is no opportunity to adjust from a 6 bowl/12 participant format for 12 years. Could there be a slight modification on the second half of the 6 years like the AAC gaining a contract or a 6 team playoff, possibly but even then the marketplace may not have the stomach for it.