(04-29-2014 10:14 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 08:16 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 08:03 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  It's all about the money - specifically how to guarantee the P5 will get 80%+ of it guaranteed. Once that is figured out, the CFP will expand, but not before.

Give auto bids to champs of all P5 conferences - that's 5 out of 8, or 62.5% right there - and have 3 at-large bids. That's a better guarantee than the 4 at-large bids we have now (and still allows for up to 4 teams from a single conference, in theory).

No. It's not about the bids - it's about the money. The P5 could be completely shut out of the 4-team playoff and they would still get over 80% of the revenue. That's the overriding factor here. They don't want a system that doesn't pay them rain-or-shine. Guaranteeing spots to the P5 would only be a part of the equation for an 8-team playoff.

I agree about the money, I'm just not seeing any way that 8-team playoff with 5 guaranteed playoff spots would pay any less than a 4-team playoff with 5 guaranteed host bowl spots...

...in fact, if they play the first round at the home stadiums of the higher seed AND keep the Rose, Sugar and Orange bowls as-is, that would be even MORE money!

(04-29-2014 11:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 09:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 09:01 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  G5 probably isnt getting a guaranteed AQ but I could see something to the effect of a partial AQ like "If the highest rated G5 champ is ranked higher than one of the P5 AQ bids then they automatically get one of the 3 AL bids"

Or guaranteed if rated 8 or better.

Worst case scenario, one of the autos rated worse than 8, a G5 champ is #8 and the net result is #7 doesn't get an at-large.

To award an automatic bid to a G5 team that is "higher ranked" than a P5 champ, or higher ranked than the best P5 non-champ, or whatever, there would have to be an official ranking in the first place, whether it's a composite of computer rankings (most of which are flawed and non-transparent, as discussed many times) or a composite of voter polls (also flawed and non-transparent).

There are no official rankings, though, in the CFP system, unless the committee changes course and decides to issue some kind of rankings. They say they're only going to release interim votes of how they think the teams line up every few weeks, and a list of playoff and bowl assignments on the first Sunday in December.

Just because the CFP doesn't endorse a ranking doesn't mean there isn't a ranking. All the media endorse ranking in their promotion of games using either AP or USA Today (ESPN used to just pick the highest of the two for their ads).

The point being that whether the CFP has a rating system or not the public says there is a rating system, the AP Poll or to a lesser degree USA Today Coaches Poll.

(04-29-2014 01:03 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:14 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 08:16 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 08:03 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  It's all about the money - specifically how to guarantee the P5 will get 80%+ of it guaranteed. Once that is figured out, the CFP will expand, but not before.

Give auto bids to champs of all P5 conferences - that's 5 out of 8, or 62.5% right there - and have 3 at-large bids. That's a better guarantee than the 4 at-large bids we have now (and still allows for up to 4 teams from a single conference, in theory).

No. It's not about the bids - it's about the money. The P5 could be completely shut out of the 4-team playoff and they would still get over 80% of the revenue. That's the overriding factor here. They don't want a system that doesn't pay them rain-or-shine. Guaranteeing spots to the P5 would only be a part of the equation for an 8-team playoff.

I agree about the money, I'm just not seeing any way that 8-team playoff with 5 guaranteed playoff spots would pay any less than a 4-team playoff with 5 guaranteed host bowl spots...

...in fact, if they play the first round at the home stadiums of the higher seed AND keep the Rose, Sugar and Orange bowls as-is, that would be even MORE money!

Right, but the whole "what-if" is the issue. If they play the first round at the home stadiums of the teams seeded #1-4, how does that guarantee the P5 the lion's share of that money, especially if (by some miracle) they DON'T get all four of those top seeds? Or even better, how do you split that revenue among the P5 in a somewhat equitable fashion if one conference ends up dominating that seeding? Once they can come to a consensus on how to guarantee revenue and distribute it relatively equitably, you'll have the extra round.

It's easy enough to expand logistically, but not financially.

(04-29-2014 01:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 09:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 09:01 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  G5 probably isnt getting a guaranteed AQ but I could see something to the effect of a partial AQ like "If the highest rated G5 champ is ranked higher than one of the P5 AQ bids then they automatically get one of the 3 AL bids"

Or guaranteed if rated 8 or better.

Worst case scenario, one of the autos rated worse than 8, a G5 champ is #8 and the net result is #7 doesn't get an at-large.

To award an automatic bid to a G5 team that is "higher ranked" than a P5 champ, or higher ranked than the best P5 non-champ, or whatever, there would have to be an official ranking in the first place, whether it's a composite of computer rankings (most of which are flawed and non-transparent, as discussed many times) or a composite of voter polls (also flawed and non-transparent).

There are no official rankings, though, in the CFP system, unless the committee changes course and decides to issue some kind of rankings. They say they're only going to release interim votes of how they think the teams line up every few weeks, and a list of playoff and bowl assignments on the first Sunday in December.

Just because the CFP doesn't endorse a ranking doesn't mean there isn't a ranking. All the media endorse ranking in their promotion of games using either AP or USA Today (ESPN used to just pick the highest of the two for their ads).

The point being that whether the CFP has a rating system or not the public says there is a rating system, the AP Poll or to a lesser degree USA Today Coaches Poll.

Oh, sure, those polls will continue to exist. The point is that, in order to select any of the playoff teams according to a ranking, there has to be a ranking used by the committee to make that selection.

(04-29-2014 02:22 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 01:03 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:14 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 08:16 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 08:03 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  It's all about the money - specifically how to guarantee the P5 will get 80%+ of it guaranteed. Once that is figured out, the CFP will expand, but not before.

Give auto bids to champs of all P5 conferences - that's 5 out of 8, or 62.5% right there - and have 3 at-large bids. That's a better guarantee than the 4 at-large bids we have now (and still allows for up to 4 teams from a single conference, in theory).

No. It's not about the bids - it's about the money. The P5 could be completely shut out of the 4-team playoff and they would still get over 80% of the revenue. That's the overriding factor here. They don't want a system that doesn't pay them rain-or-shine. Guaranteeing spots to the P5 would only be a part of the equation for an 8-team playoff.

I agree about the money, I'm just not seeing any way that 8-team playoff with 5 guaranteed playoff spots would pay any less than a 4-team playoff with 5 guaranteed host bowl spots...

...in fact, if they play the first round at the home stadiums of the higher seed AND keep the Rose, Sugar and Orange bowls as-is, that would be even MORE money!

Right, but the whole "what-if" is the issue. If they play the first round at the home stadiums of the teams seeded #1-4, how does that guarantee the P5 the lion's share of that money, especially if (by some miracle) they DON'T get all four of those top seeds? Or even better, how do you split that revenue among the P5 in a somewhat equitable fashion if one conference ends up dominating that seeding? Once they can come to a consensus on how to guarantee revenue and distribute it relatively equitably, you'll have the extra round.

It's easy enough to expand logistically, but not financially.

Its done now. Why not just treat it like a bowl game that pays into the CFP pot. The pot gets divided like it always is with the P5 getting the lions share. There would be a bowl payout for the schools actually appearing. I don't think it would be that difficult to figure out how to divide the money. I do think it would be very unpopular with existing bowl games.

(04-29-2014 08:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 02:22 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 01:03 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:14 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 08:16 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Give auto bids to champs of all P5 conferences - that's 5 out of 8, or 62.5% right there - and have 3 at-large bids. That's a better guarantee than the 4 at-large bids we have now (and still allows for up to 4 teams from a single conference, in theory).

No. It's not about the bids - it's about the money. The P5 could be completely shut out of the 4-team playoff and they would still get over 80% of the revenue. That's the overriding factor here. They don't want a system that doesn't pay them rain-or-shine. Guaranteeing spots to the P5 would only be a part of the equation for an 8-team playoff.

I agree about the money, I'm just not seeing any way that 8-team playoff with 5 guaranteed playoff spots would pay any less than a 4-team playoff with 5 guaranteed host bowl spots...

...in fact, if they play the first round at the home stadiums of the higher seed AND keep the Rose, Sugar and Orange bowls as-is, that would be even MORE money!

Right, but the whole "what-if" is the issue. If they play the first round at the home stadiums of the teams seeded #1-4, how does that guarantee the P5 the lion's share of that money, especially if (by some miracle) they DON'T get all four of those top seeds? Or even better, how do you split that revenue among the P5 in a somewhat equitable fashion if one conference ends up dominating that seeding? Once they can come to a consensus on how to guarantee revenue and distribute it relatively equitably, you'll have the extra round.

It's easy enough to expand logistically, but not financially.

Its done now. Why not just treat it like a bowl game that pays into the CFP pot. The pot gets divided like it always is with the P5 getting the lions share. There would be a bowl payout for the schools actually appearing. I don't think it would be that difficult to figure out how to divide the money. I do think it would be very unpopular with existing bowl games.

It's done now because the bowls are neutral site games. I don't think that there is much appetite for a third round of neutral site games. And I think it would be difficult to justify a home team giving up the majority of its gate to someone else if the 1st round is at the home stadiums of the higher seeds.

(04-29-2014 08:33 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 08:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 02:22 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 01:03 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:14 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  No. It's not about the bids - it's about the money. The P5 could be completely shut out of the 4-team playoff and they would still get over 80% of the revenue. That's the overriding factor here. They don't want a system that doesn't pay them rain-or-shine. Guaranteeing spots to the P5 would only be a part of the equation for an 8-team playoff.

I agree about the money, I'm just not seeing any way that 8-team playoff with 5 guaranteed playoff spots would pay any less than a 4-team playoff with 5 guaranteed host bowl spots...

...in fact, if they play the first round at the home stadiums of the higher seed AND keep the Rose, Sugar and Orange bowls as-is, that would be even MORE money!

Right, but the whole "what-if" is the issue. If they play the first round at the home stadiums of the teams seeded #1-4, how does that guarantee the P5 the lion's share of that money, especially if (by some miracle) they DON'T get all four of those top seeds? Or even better, how do you split that revenue among the P5 in a somewhat equitable fashion if one conference ends up dominating that seeding? Once they can come to a consensus on how to guarantee revenue and distribute it relatively equitably, you'll have the extra round.

It's easy enough to expand logistically, but not financially.

Its done now. Why not just treat it like a bowl game that pays into the CFP pot. The pot gets divided like it always is with the P5 getting the lions share. There would be a bowl payout for the schools actually appearing. I don't think it would be that difficult to figure out how to divide the money. I do think it would be very unpopular with existing bowl games.

It's done now because the bowls are neutral site games. I don't think that there is much appetite for a third round of neutral site games. And I think it would be difficult to justify a home team giving up the majority of its gate to someone else if the 1st round is at the home stadiums of the higher seeds.

That's what I just said. Treat the first round games played at home stadiums just like bowl games. The teams get a pay out and the stadiums get a fee plus concessions. The media rights, sponsorships, and ticket sales go to the CFP. The only losers are existing bowls---none will be elevated to host round one.

Under that scenario, either 2 bowls disappear--or first round losers are still free to accept a bowl bid.

Truth is most college AD,s don't know nothing.

(04-30-2014 01:24 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 08:33 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 08:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 02:22 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 01:03 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I agree about the money, I'm just not seeing any way that 8-team playoff with 5 guaranteed playoff spots would pay any less than a 4-team playoff with 5 guaranteed host bowl spots...

...in fact, if they play the first round at the home stadiums of the higher seed AND keep the Rose, Sugar and Orange bowls as-is, that would be even MORE money!

Right, but the whole "what-if" is the issue. If they play the first round at the home stadiums of the teams seeded #1-4, how does that guarantee the P5 the lion's share of that money, especially if (by some miracle) they DON'T get all four of those top seeds? Or even better, how do you split that revenue among the P5 in a somewhat equitable fashion if one conference ends up dominating that seeding? Once they can come to a consensus on how to guarantee revenue and distribute it relatively equitably, you'll have the extra round.

It's easy enough to expand logistically, but not financially.

Its done now. Why not just treat it like a bowl game that pays into the CFP pot. The pot gets divided like it always is with the P5 getting the lions share. There would be a bowl payout for the schools actually appearing. I don't think it would be that difficult to figure out how to divide the money. I do think it would be very unpopular with existing bowl games.

It's done now because the bowls are neutral site games. I don't think that there is much appetite for a third round of neutral site games. And I think it would be difficult to justify a home team giving up the majority of its gate to someone else if the 1st round is at the home stadiums of the higher seeds.

That's what I just said. Treat the first round games played at home stadiums just like bowl games. The teams get a pay out and the stadiums get a fee plus concessions. The media rights, sponsorships, and ticket sales go to the CFP. The only losers are existing bowls---none will be elevated to host round one.

Under that scenario, either 2 bowls disappear--or first round losers are still free to accept a bowl bid.

I think that there is some heartburn on the ticket issue. At least with an on-campus CCG, the home team gets half the gate. That would not be the case here, as the vast majority of the gate would go elsewhere and possibly out of the conference. If schools are willing to accept that they won't get paid for putting forth all the effort to host a game on short notice, then maybe that will work.

And if the 1st round is done the week after the CCG's, then the 1st round losers would be free to go to other bowl games - even Access Bowls.

(04-30-2014 07:10 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Truth is most college AD,s don't know nothing.

They know how to increase revenue by $10 million and spending by $12 million.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...d/9051481/

Bill Hancock and John Skipper interview:

Quote:The message is clear: The Football Bowl Subdivision may one day expand its current postseason format – the four-team playoff system adopted this season – in favor of a larger bracket, but not until the conclusion of the 12-year contractual agreement between the College Football Playoff and ESPN.

Or, to be more blunt: "We're not even thinking eight (teams) at all," College Football Playoff executive director Bill Hancock said Tuesday. "Really, it's four for 12 years and then we'll reevaluate."

I don't see Bill Hancock being alive in 12 years IMO

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(05-13-2014 04:49 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...d/9051481/

Bill Hancock and John Skipper interview:

Quote:The message is clear: The Football Bowl Subdivision may one day expand its current postseason format – the four-team playoff system adopted this season – in favor of a larger bracket, but not until the conclusion of the 12-year contractual agreement between the College Football Playoff and ESPN.

Or, to be more blunt: "We're not even thinking eight (teams) at all," College Football Playoff executive director Bill Hancock said Tuesday. "Really, it's four for 12 years and then we'll reevaluate."

Well there you go. Being the head of the CFP that'll settle that until 11 years from now.
At least there is a 4 team playoff. Baby steps!

(05-13-2014 05:07 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 04:49 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...d/9051481/

Bill Hancock and John Skipper interview:

Quote:The message is clear: The Football Bowl Subdivision may one day expand its current postseason format – the four-team playoff system adopted this season – in favor of a larger bracket, but not until the conclusion of the 12-year contractual agreement between the College Football Playoff and ESPN.

Or, to be more blunt: "We're not even thinking eight (teams) at all," College Football Playoff executive director Bill Hancock said Tuesday. "Really, it's four for 12 years and then we'll reevaluate."

Well there you go. Being the head of the CFP that'll settle that until 11 years from now.
At least there is a 4 team playoff. Baby steps!

And 3 months before the playoff started seriously being discussed, he was saying there would never be a playoff.

8 won't happen in the next 4 years, but beyond that Hancock's statements are meaningless. If ESPN and the colleges want to do it and it makes financial sense, it will happen, regardless of whether there is a 12 year contract or not.

Eight will happen when there is more comfort with how this is working and we are closer to the back-end of the contract and looking to renegotiate.

(05-13-2014 05:07 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 04:49 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...d/9051481/

Bill Hancock and John Skipper interview:

Quote:The message is clear: The Football Bowl Subdivision may one day expand its current postseason format – the four-team playoff system adopted this season – in favor of a larger bracket, but not until the conclusion of the 12-year contractual agreement between the College Football Playoff and ESPN.

Or, to be more blunt: "We're not even thinking eight (teams) at all," College Football Playoff executive director Bill Hancock said Tuesday. "Really, it's four for 12 years and then we'll reevaluate."

Well there you go. Being the head of the CFP that'll settle that until 11 years from now.
At least there is a 4 team playoff. Baby steps!

No, that settles that Until they change their mind. There is a contract for a four team tournament. When all parties involved agree on expanding it, then the legalities of expanding it are miniscule in comparison to actually getting all parties to agree on expanding.

Most of us here have seen enough of these "absolute statements of nothing happening" to know that they are only temporary statements.

The plan NOW is for it to last 12 years. That is what he is saying and nothing more. Plans can change.

The people in the know on the playoff didn't just create a four team playoff for no reason. They did it by design, intentionally. College football fans are decreasing as evidenced by lower attendance and good but not stellar ratings in many cases. The less schools get in, the more the regular season-every game-is important.

Also, the powers that be knew that changes have to be made in regards to the players. A longer playoff means more games, and also more injuries. It also brings possibly more lower level schools into the equation which they are attempting to reduce in order to preserve the excitement with CFB for the fans. Despite the occasional lower level upset, most viewers aren't watching the lower level schools get pounded by the major conference schools. At least that seems to be a view at the top.

I think you will see either another round of conference moves so leagues can have 2 round playoffs or the real playoffs expand to 8.

(05-13-2014 08:57 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  The people in the know on the playoff didn't just create a four team playoff for no reason. They did it by design, intentionally. College football fans are decreasing as evidenced by lower attendance and good but not stellar ratings in many cases. The less schools get in, the more the regular season-every game-is important.

Also, the powers that be knew that changes have to be made in regards to the players. A longer playoff means more games, and also more injuries. It also brings possibly more lower level schools into the equation which they are attempting to reduce in order to preserve the excitement with CFB for the fans. Despite the occasional lower level upset, most viewers aren't watching the lower level schools get pounded by the major conference schools. At least that seems to be a view at the top.

And the BCS was designed deliberately with the same rationales. And it would never be changed.

(05-13-2014 09:36 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I think you will see either another round of conference moves so leagues can have 2 round playoffs or the real playoffs expand to 8.

Ahhh yes, there is that too. We ARE going to have an 8 team playoff. Everyone wants it because of how much money has already been thrown into the playoffs without even seeing any ratings yet from them.

The problem though is that it is very likely that most if not all the Majors are leveraging that 8 team tournament to get what they want first.

How many of the conferences that aren't considered Majors are going to regularly see their teams in that four team playoff? OBVIOUSLY they want an 8 team playoff. Much better chance for their conferences to get some representation but in order to get that they have to basically give in to the Majors on other issues.

The Majors will hold up the 8 team playoff for ransom.