http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...e-football

Mike Gundy Oklahoma State.


This is light of what is transpring with the P5 automony will keep the G5 conferences happy.

I don't think it will happen anytime soon.

I could see 8 but no more. 6 probably works better with 2 teams getting a bye to reward or make the regular season have meaning. All the this talk about separation kinda misses the point, the real money is just creating a better system for football…all the other sports setup is fine. AN 6-8 team playoff with access pretty much limited to the p5 is something that needs to be created. THe p5 can give a few bones to those outside with a bowl game payout but the real money from the playoff stays in house.

(04-23-2014 10:20 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I could see 8 but no more. 6 probably works better with 2 teams getting a bye to reward or make the regular season have meaning. All the this talk about separation kinda misses the point, the real money is just creating a better system for football…all the other sports setup is fine. AN 6-8 team playoff with access pretty much limited to the p5 is something that needs to be created. THe p5 can give a few bones to those outside with a bowl game payout but the real money from the playoff stays in house.

The BCS when it was formed had a single purpose.

Maximize bowl revenue because the presidents would not approve a playoff.

The 1-2 game was merely a marketing hook.

As time went on the six AQ leagues discovered that taking an exclusionary stance damaged the brand in the eyes of the public. Since then they have made the system more inclusive on paper, even more inclusive than the G5 have asked.

That's a big reason why the split hysteria is silly. It has the potential to harm the brand.

Absolutely it will expand. The reason for limiting it was....Leverage.

College Football established the "value" of a 4-team playoff. Its there, set in stone...signed sealed and delivered.

That is the starting point for the value of a 8-team playoff.

The reason the G5 was included was smart...keep all of FBS included...and when the 8-team playoff is included, you just keep that G5 spot and dont expand on that, but G5 gets more access via 8 than 4.

The answer as to when it expands is simple....when the money is there.

One factor that we fans may miss - if the playoffs expand to 8 teams, will ESPN want to renegotiate the "Host" bowls down, since they may not get as good of match-ups? I'm not saying they would, just asking...

(04-23-2014 11:31 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  One factor that we fans may miss - if the playoffs expand to 8 teams, will ESPN want to renegotiate the "Host" bowls down, since they may not get as good of match-ups? I'm not saying they would, just asking...

Right now there is a cartel of 6 bowl games, and the setup is that 2 of them host semifinals each year, followed by a stand-alone title game.

For an 8-team playoff, there would be 4 quarterfinals, 2 semifinals, and a title game. So, the 6 cartel bowls could host the quarterfinals and semifinals, rotating the semifinals amongst themselves from year to year, again followed by a stand-alone title game.

In other words, after expanding to an 8-team playoff, each of those 6 bowls would still have its claws in the TV money. Unless the CFP powerbrokers decide to cut the bowls out of the playoff, which they should do but probably won't.

(04-23-2014 11:42 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 11:31 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  One factor that we fans may miss - if the playoffs expand to 8 teams, will ESPN want to renegotiate the "Host" bowls down, since they may not get as good of match-ups? I'm not saying they would, just asking...

Right now there is a cartel of 6 bowl games, and the setup is that 2 of them host semifinals each year, followed by a stand-alone title game.

For an 8-team playoff, there would be 4 quarterfinals, 2 semifinals, and a title game. So, the 6 cartel bowls could host the quarterfinals and semifinals, rotating the semifinals amongst themselves from year to year, again followed by a stand-alone title game.

In other words, after expanding to an 8-team playoff, each of those 6 bowls would still have its claws in the TV money. Unless the CFP powerbrokers decide to cut the bowls out of the playoff, which they should do but probably won't.

I think they may tenatively try 6 because there is some concern whether three layers of neutral site games will be viable from an attendance standpoint but there seems to be a lot of reservation about home site games.

The playoff will expand...when the P5 determines exactly how to guarantee themselves the additional revenue seen from such a venture. They went to the 4-team model when they figured out how to guarantee themsleves 80%+ of the revenue. They won't expand it again until they figure out how to guarantee a similar percentage for themselves.

The next step obviously is add a play-in game for the #4 vs. #5 seeds typically for any teams that do not win a conference championship game.

Think Notre Dame from 2 years ago, Alabama from last year, or Oklahoma State and Alabama from 3 years ago. They would be ideal candidates for a play-in game. All were in the top 4 ranking that year but none of them won or even played in a CCG.

In fact Alabama vs. Oklahoma State 3 years ago would be the ideal play-in game.

The bigger they make the playoff, the harder it will be to sell tix. If you go to 8 the first round should be held on campus of the top 4 schools. Fans are not an endless pile of $$$. You can sell them on one big travel game and expense. 2 or 3 gets much harder.

Nothing new, I have said it from the very beginning of talks of the playoffs. The 4 team playoff is a two to three year system at most. If next year has a very strong number 5 team get kept out, then it may only last one year.

This declaration by Gundy really shouldn't come as a surprise to most folks here, it's just further proof that the future is generally more predictable than most realize. That is especially the case when money matters, that makes the situation very easy to predict.

Anything above 8 teams is quite a stretch...right now. No point in contemplating more than 8 at this point.

(04-23-2014 03:29 PM)goofus Wrote:  The next step obviously is add a play-in game for the #4 vs. #5 seeds typically for any teams that do not win a conference championship game.

Think Notre Dame from 2 years ago, Alabama from last year, or Oklahoma State and Alabama from 3 years ago. They would be ideal candidates for a play-in game. All were in the top 4 ranking that year but none of them won or even played in a CCG.

In fact Alabama vs. Oklahoma State 3 years ago would be the ideal play-in game.

Think this is your answer here. You could have a play-in game on the home sights. But if that's the case, I don't think you can have 8 teams getting into the playoff, because that first round shouldn't be played at neutral sites (and home games devalue the Bowls). I think two travel weekends back to back is the max CF can do, even for the top traveling fan bases in the B1G and SEC. It's just too excessive otherwise.

So if you have 3 byes and a 4-5, then you could still lock out the G5 Champion and just have the committee seed the clubs. If you have 2 byes and two play ins, it's going to be harder to lock out the G5. And if the G5 gets an automatic bid, then you effectively remove At-Large clubs, which will be a non-starter for the P5.

6 teams doesn't work because there is nothing to be gained from the P5 unless they get automatic bids, and no one wants a 9-4 B1G or ACC champ in a playoff losing 35-10.

If the G5 somehow get more leverage, and CF wants to play off that Cinderella story to sell the Final Four, you could have G5 versus #4 seed as a play in game. Venue would be Neutral site or home game for highest seed depending on if G5 is a top 4 team or not. This would actually be a nice trade off, because rather than giving a G5 an automatic spot into the Final Four if they earn it on the field (top 4 finish), they are still forced to play a play in game regardless, perhaps at home or a neutral site. I think that is the trade off the P5 would look for.

(04-23-2014 07:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Nothing new, I have said it from the very beginning of talks of the playoffs. The 4 team playoff is a two to three year system at most. If next year has a very strong number 5 team get kept out, then it may only last one year.

This declaration by Gundy really shouldn't come as a surprise to most folks here, it's just further proof that the future is generally more predictable than most realize. That is especially the case when money matters, that makes the situation very easy to predict.

Anything above 8 teams is quite a stretch...right now. No point in contemplating more than 8 at this point.

The current contract is 12 years, it is bringing in fatter revenue than the initial hopes. They will wait at least 6 to 8 years if not the term of the deal before the members want to re-open and extract more cash. The presidents weren't wildly enthusiastic about adding one more game to the season, adding yet another will take some time. Plus the conferences will want a bigger data set on selection before changing to better project how the change will impact them and how to best adjust for it, waiting gets them closer to the end of their league TV deals making it a better time to adjust membership.

(04-23-2014 10:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 07:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Nothing new, I have said it from the very beginning of talks of the playoffs. The 4 team playoff is a two to three year system at most. If next year has a very strong number 5 team get kept out, then it may only last one year.

This declaration by Gundy really shouldn't come as a surprise to most folks here, it's just further proof that the future is generally more predictable than most realize. That is especially the case when money matters, that makes the situation very easy to predict.

Anything above 8 teams is quite a stretch...right now. No point in contemplating more than 8 at this point.

The current contract is 12 years, it is bringing in fatter revenue than the initial hopes. They will wait at least 6 to 8 years if not the term of the deal before the members want to re-open and extract more cash. The presidents weren't wildly enthusiastic about adding one more game to the season, adding yet another will take some time. Plus the conferences will want a bigger data set on selection before changing to better project how the change will impact them and how to best adjust for it, waiting gets them closer to the end of their league TV deals making it a better time to adjust membership.

We havnt even had one yet and there is already growing pressure. Time and time again I see folks toting the line like you are, thinking this will happen in very conservative fashion.

Those times are over. Things happen much more quickly now.

One playoff where a number 5 has a legitimate claim to be there as much as the number 4 and you are going to have a clamor among some folks. Most folks realize this problem is going to happen sooner or later, even the Oklahoma State Coach understands this. I guarantee you he isn't the only one.

Six to eight years? Not happening. The train is moving much more quickly than that.

I am not convinced 8 is coming soon. TV $$ will be there, Tix sales I doubt. You already see the problem with the Champ game and Bowls. Champ games have trouble selling tix.

I don't see the point of adding only 2. That just leaves money on the table. It also devalues the games because it essentially makes them play-in games. If you want to expand, go to 8.

I don't think expanding to 8 would double the revenue. The later rounds of any playoff are more popular (i.e. watched) and so generate more TV revenue. More revenue revolves around 2 things:

- host the games at the schools with the NC at a neutral site. This eliminates the cut the bowls currently get.
- branding. The Final Four, AFC Championship, etc. are just more playoff games but they generate buzz (read viewers) because of branding.

(04-24-2014 07:20 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  I don't see the point of adding only 2. That just leaves money on the table. It also devalues the games because it essentially makes them play-in games. If you want to expand, go to 8.

I don't think expanding to 8 would double the revenue. The later rounds of any playoff are more popular (i.e. watched) and so generate more TV revenue. More revenue revolves around 2 things:

- host the games at the schools with the NC at a neutral site. This eliminates the cut the bowls currently get.
- branding. The Final Four, AFC Championship, etc. are just more playoff games but they generate buzz (read viewers) because of branding.

It's the College Football Playoff ™. Consultants got paid lots of money to come up with this!

Six sounds good to me: 2 bye's and the remaining 4 come from the remaining P5 conference's (3) and the highest ranked from the G5/ND.

I think initial excitement will be off the chart because it's 'all inclusive' plus room for a Cinderella.

Issue: a great conference's #2 will complain about being left out and then, begrudgingly, we'll have to go to 8. Going to make for a long season but there is a long 'dead period' in Decemember to get these additional games in.

(04-23-2014 10:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 07:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Nothing new, I have said it from the very beginning of talks of the playoffs. The 4 team playoff is a two to three year system at most. If next year has a very strong number 5 team get kept out, then it may only last one year.

This declaration by Gundy really shouldn't come as a surprise to most folks here, it's just further proof that the future is generally more predictable than most realize. That is especially the case when money matters, that makes the situation very easy to predict.

Anything above 8 teams is quite a stretch...right now. No point in contemplating more than 8 at this point.

The current contract is 12 years, it is bringing in fatter revenue than the initial hopes. They will wait at least 6 to 8 years if not the term of the deal before the members want to re-open and extract more cash. The presidents weren't wildly enthusiastic about adding one more game to the season, adding yet another will take some time. Plus the conferences will want a bigger data set on selection before changing to better project how the change will impact them and how to best adjust for it, waiting gets them closer to the end of their league TV deals making it a better time to adjust membership.

There's a reason the CFP website only lists the New Year's Six rotation for only three years.

And if they did the first round on campus, say the week that they currently do the Army-Navy game, they can still have the New Year's Six be the "Final Four" so to speak for the rest of the contract. It's fairly readily expandable, but it all depends on how the additional revenue would be guaranteed to the P5.