We haven't even started the 4-team playoff already and folks are asking how long until we have an 8-team playoff. Some journalists I respect a lot are saying it could happen in as little as 6 years (before the current CFP contracts expire). I say baloney.

There is NO reason that the NCAA (or whatever we call it after August) wouldn't go to 6 before it went to 8. Why?

1. In the current structure, each conference makes its own money. Its regular season and its conference championship game matters most when it comes to entrance in the CFP. 8 teams might make more money in the "collective pot"...but it could actually DECREASE the amount of money individual conferences can collect.

2. A way to make each conference's regular season and championship game matter even MORE...is to give an automatic bid to the Power 5 conference's champions. Last year, the big Stanford/ASU Pac-12 title game meant very little (much like the Nebraska/Wisconsin Big Ten game in 2012). If those teams are guaranteed a spot, what you are actually doing is giving the Power 5 a quasi quarterfinal round that they get to pocket all the money for.

3. CFB's regular season is the cash cow. Remember this. Casual fans are more likely to check out for the regular season (see March Madness) if there is an elaborate playoff that is the only thing that "really matters" towards crowning a champ.

4. One "wild card" team is still admitted in years where two top teams exist in one conference (2006 Michigan, 2011 Alabama, 2013 Alabama).

So, that's the ironclad, "follow the money" argument for 6 before 8.

How would this work?
1. Use the committee system they have just set up (if that seems to work, and I think it will)...and give the top two teams byes until Dec31/Jan1. Those two fan bases can start making plans for the semi-final.

2. Have a play-in site that is bid out (just like the championship game is). Play both "play-in" games at the same site (to prevent travel fatigue for fans and to make sure the seats are filled). 4 vs. 5 on Friday night. 1 vs. 6 on Saturday night.

3. Considering the current CFB schedule, I think you'd need to schedule the play-in games the week after the conference championships. (Heisman weekend, currently). I know this is around finals and this is a lot of travel consecutively and all that...but ask UConn and Kentucky players how many classes they attended last March? The NCAA will make exceptions.

I know it's unique...but quirkiness is part of the charm of CFB.

How would you include the smaller conferences?

If they are still included at all in the CFP's structure, they would be appeased with a chance at that elusive "at large" bid. Maybe make a proviso that any Gang of 5 team that makes the top 4 gets in automatically?

But remember...the "committee" is going to be deciding seeds...so that "top 4" seeding could become even more elusive...

The next iteration is to expand the playoff to 5 teams by adding a "play-in" game.

Because the next big debate that is coming is teams that make 4-team playoff that did not play in a conference championship game.

The solution will be to add a play-in game the week after the CCG for 2 teams that did not play in a conference championship game. Some examples include Notre Dame, or the Big 12 Champion, or a team like Alabama that does not win its division but is still ranked in the top 5.

Methinks the best possible format is the same that the Basketball Tournament uses. All conference champions (as determined by that conference) should be given a bid and a certain amount of At-Large bids to be doled out to the best remaining teams in the country. I think the basketball format is popular for a reason so why reinvent the wheel? The only real questions are how many at large, where will the games be played, how money will be distributed, and how do you want to integrate the bowls so they aren't killed off.
With (AAC, ACC, B12, B1G, ConfUSA, MAC, MWC, Pac12, SEC, & SunBelt) 10 automatic bids the first question is 6, 14, or 22 at large bids. I think 6 (16 team tourney) would have plenty of controversy depending on who's left out. 22 (32 team tourney) feels like too many but may keep the P5 happy but also may endanger th bowl system, 14 (24 team tourney) still may be big but provides a bye week for top 8. I vote for a 16 team tourney!
As for location of games... on campus, we aren't talking basketball this is football and moving 50K plus people with a weeks notice is nuts depending on how far away the travel is.
While I won't touch of funds distribution I think preserving bowls is important so it must be interwoven into the playoff. Starting with th calendar, I think that the conference season including the conference championship games should be concluded by the last Saturday in November to clear sufficient time for the tourney. Pairings should be announcing on Sunday. And first set of games to begin the week following with the higher ranked team choosing the location. Week 1 Prelims, week 2 quarterfinals, week 3 semifinals will all be played on campus. Losers in weeks 1 & 2 must play in a bowl game to be eligible to receive financial disbursement of tournament. Losers of week 3 are eligible would play in "Bronze Metal" bowl. So with teams not making the tourney obviously being eligible for the bowl system, the general idea is that all eligle teams last game of the year is a bowl game.

Personally I would like to see a 12-team playoff.

The field would include the top 6 conference champions and 6 at large teams.

The top 4 conference champions get the top 4 seeds and a first round bye.

I agree with nos. 2 and 4 (kinda) but not nos. 1 and 3.

1.) There is some logic to this one but if the revenue is shared and structured properly, an 8-team playoff will definitely make more money for each league than will a 4-team or even a 6-team playoff.

3.) It is a myth that people don't watch college basketball because of the NCAA Tournament. If the tournament killed interest in the regular season, we would have seen evidence of that in the 80s and 90s. However the ratings were strong then. They only changed when more and more kids began to skip college altogether or were one and done.

Also, if the presence of playoffs hurt interest in the regular season, the NFL too would have poor regular season ratings. Instead it has gangbusters regular season ratings.

The reason for the decrease in college basketball interest is that none of its stars ever stay so it is challenging to keep up with all of the turnover and fruitless to invest one's self too deeply into things.

I submit that like the NFL playoffs does with the NFL's regular season, the NCAA Tournament HELPS raise interest in college basketball's regular season. In fact, were it not for the NCAA Tournament, men's college basketball's television ratings would be comparable to those of women's college basketball.

A full blown 8-team or 16-team college football playoff would HELP raise interest in college football's regular season because a LOT more games would have some sort of impact on the national championship chase than is the case now.

(06-01-2014 03:49 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  We haven't even started the 4-team playoff already and folks are asking how long until we have an 8-team playoff. Some journalists I respect a lot are saying it could happen in as little as 6 years (before the current CFP contracts expire). I say baloney.

There is NO reason that the NCAA (or whatever we call it after August) wouldn't go to 6 before it went to 8. Why?

1. In the current structure, each conference makes its own money. Its regular season and its conference championship game matters most when it comes to entrance in the CFP. 8 teams might make more money in the "collective pot"...but it could actually DECREASE the amount of money individual conferences can collect.

2. A way to make each conference's regular season and championship game matter even MORE...is to give an automatic bid to the Power 5 conference's champions. Last year, the big Stanford/ASU Pac-12 title game meant very little (much like the Nebraska/Wisconsin Big Ten game in 2012). If those teams are guaranteed a spot, what you are actually doing is giving the Power 5 a quasi quarterfinal round that they get to pocket all the money for.

3. CFB's regular season is the cash cow. Remember this. Casual fans are more likely to check out for the regular season (see March Madness) if there is an elaborate playoff that is the only thing that "really matters" towards crowning a champ.

4. One "wild card" team is still admitted in years where two top teams exist in one conference (2006 Michigan, 2011 Alabama, 2013 Alabama).

So, that's the ironclad, "follow the money" argument for 6 before 8.

How would this work?
1. Use the committee system they have just set up (if that seems to work, and I think it will)...and give the top two teams byes until Dec31/Jan1. Those two fan bases can start making plans for the semi-final.

2. Have a play-in site that is bid out (just like the championship game is). Play both "play-in" games at the same site (to prevent travel fatigue for fans and to make sure the seats are filled). 4 vs. 5 on Friday night. 1 vs. 6 on Saturday night.

3. Considering the current CFB schedule, I think you'd need to schedule the play-in games the week after the conference championships. (Heisman weekend, currently). I know this is around finals and this is a lot of travel consecutively and all that...but ask UConn and Kentucky players how many classes they attended last March? The NCAA will make exceptions.

I know it's unique...but quirkiness is part of the charm of CFB.

I can see how this might help fill the stadium, but how does it prevent travel fatigue?

Where this is going to go awry - and quickly - is when a second SEC or B12 school gets in ahead of a more or equally deserving conference champ. That will happen very quickly and very often, which is why an expansion of the playoff is all but inevitable.

Hancock and others are still saying the 12 year deal is locked in. Even if it eventually changes it probably won't be any time soon.

One big issue that people overlook is that the more playoffs that are added, it causes problems for the bowl structure that are significant.

Deals were just created for the CFP Bowls--although apparently not signed yet.

Bowls on the outside like the Alamo all the way down to the pre Christmas matchups just signed long term deals with conferences for at least the next six years.

Seems for sure that it would be at least seven years before the discussion for playoff expansion could executed. If the playoffs do expand then it probably isn't going to be for more G5 schools to be brought on board. It would be for all P5 champions, then probably a secondary team from the major conferences. With the changes taking shape now no reason to believe G5 inclusion would be a significant factor. The strength of schedule component is still going to be there and there isn't a G5 conference with significant sos.

(06-01-2014 08:21 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I agree with nos. 2 and 4 (kinda) but not nos. 1 and 3.

1.) There is some logic to this one but if the revenue is shared and structured properly, an 8-team playoff will definitely make more money for each league than will a 4-team or even a 6-team playoff.

3.) It is a myth that people don't watch college basketball because of the NCAA Tournament. If the tournament killed interest in the regular season, we would have seen evidence of that in the 80s and 90s. However the ratings were strong then. They only changed when more and more kids began to skip college altogether or were one and done.

Also, if the presence of playoffs hurt interest in the regular season, the NFL too would have poor regular season ratings. Instead it has gangbusters regular season ratings.

The reason for the decrease in college basketball interest is that none of its stars ever stay so it is challenging to keep up with all of the turnover and fruitless to invest one's self too deeply into things.

I submit that like the NFL playoffs does with the NFL's regular season, the NCAA Tournament HELPS raise interest in college basketball's regular season. In fact, were it not for the NCAA Tournament, men's college basketball's television ratings would be comparable to those of women's college basketball.

A full blown 8-team or 16-team college football playoff would HELP raise interest in college football's regular season because a LOT more games would have some sort of impact on the national championship chase than is the case now.

Basketball's problems are:
1. Fans have learned regular season has little value. The growth of the league tournament as an event leaves most teams playing for conference tournament seeding and a small subset know their NCAA fate well before their league tournament because of the large number of at-large spots.
2. The explosion in the number of CFB post-season games in December means the casual fan barely knows CBB is playing until the start of league play. When the Dance went to 64 there 18 bowl games that fall. Six were played pre-Christmas. There was a 94% increase in bowl games over 30 years despite only a 24% increase in CFB top division schools.
3. NBA is far more accessible to fans on TV than it was when the NCAA Tournament expanded to 64. 1985 was only 4 years removed from part of the NBA Finals being shown on tape delay. There were 7 fewer teams in NBA which has grown 30% since then.
4. Stars leaving may impact national viewership and fan interest at a tiny number of schools but most CBB teams have never lost a player early to the NBA and very few have lost one recently.

(06-01-2014 08:28 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  Hancock and others are still saying the 12 year deal is locked in. Even if it eventually changes it probably won't be any time soon.

One big issue that people overlook is that the more playoffs that are added, it causes problems for the bowl structure that are significant.

Deals were just created for the CFP Bowls--although apparently not signed yet.

Bowls on the outside like the Alamo all the way down to the pre Christmas matchups just signed long term deals with conferences for at least the next six years.

Seems for sure that it would be at least seven years before the discussion for playoff expansion could executed. If the playoffs do expand then it probably isn't going to be for more G5 schools to be brought on board. It would be for all P5 champions, then probably a secondary team from the major conferences. With the changes taking shape now no reason to believe G5 inclusion would be a significant factor. The strength of schedule component is still going to be there and there isn't a G5 conference with significant sos.

USA Today reported that B1G and Pac-12 will make $50 millionish from CFP and $40 million each from their contract bowl. SEC and Big XII something similar to that and ACC will get around $28 million from the Rose.

Why would B1G, B12, P12, SEC be eager to increase playoff and diminish their contract bowl revenue?

(06-01-2014 12:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 08:21 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I agree with nos. 2 and 4 (kinda) but not nos. 1 and 3.

1.) There is some logic to this one but if the revenue is shared and structured properly, an 8-team playoff will definitely make more money for each league than will a 4-team or even a 6-team playoff.

3.) It is a myth that people don't watch college basketball because of the NCAA Tournament. If the tournament killed interest in the regular season, we would have seen evidence of that in the 80s and 90s. However the ratings were strong then. They only changed when more and more kids began to skip college altogether or were one and done.

Also, if the presence of playoffs hurt interest in the regular season, the NFL too would have poor regular season ratings. Instead it has gangbusters regular season ratings.

The reason for the decrease in college basketball interest is that none of its stars ever stay so it is challenging to keep up with all of the turnover and fruitless to invest one's self too deeply into things.

I submit that like the NFL playoffs does with the NFL's regular season, the NCAA Tournament HELPS raise interest in college basketball's regular season. In fact, were it not for the NCAA Tournament, men's college basketball's television ratings would be comparable to those of women's college basketball.

A full blown 8-team or 16-team college football playoff would HELP raise interest in college football's regular season because a LOT more games would have some sort of impact on the national championship chase than is the case now.

Basketball's problems are:
1. Fans have learned regular season has little value. The growth of the league tournament as an event leaves most teams playing for conference tournament seeding and a small subset know their NCAA fate well before their league tournament because of the large number of at-large spots.
2. The explosion in the number of CFB post-season games in December means the casual fan barely knows CBB is playing until the start of league play. When the Dance went to 64 there 18 bowl games that fall. Six were played pre-Christmas. There was a 94% increase in bowl games over 30 years despite only a 24% increase in CFB top division schools.
3. NBA is far more accessible to fans on TV than it was when the NCAA Tournament expanded to 64. 1985 was only 4 years removed from part of the NBA Finals being shown on tape delay. There were 7 fewer teams in NBA which has grown 30% since then.
4. Stars leaving may impact national viewership and fan interest at a tiny number of schools but most CBB teams have never lost a player early to the NBA and very few have lost one recently.

Frankly, I don't see much evidence that fan interest in schools like Kentucky, Carolina, Kansas, Duke, et al (the schools that regularly have early entrants) has waned at all.

(06-01-2014 08:23 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Where this is going to go awry - and quickly - is when a second SEC or B12 school gets in ahead of a more or equally deserving conference champ. That will happen very quickly and very often, which is why an expansion of the playoff is all but inevitable.

I agree. I think in a basketball tournament, you can afford to have teams invited who might win a game or two but have very little chance of actually winning the whole thing. In football, the nature of the sport is such that you don't have that luxury. IMO, the goal should be to have a field large enough that every team with a realistic chance of winning it all is included.

That, of course, doesn't mean that any team without a realistic chance is excluded. Just that those teams who earned their way in through conference performance don't keep out one that does.

I have argued for a model that does away with conference championship games in order to have an additional playoff round without drastically expanding the length of the regular season. In my model, I solve the attendance/travel problem by having the first two rounds hosted by one of the participants. Only the final four games are played at neutral sites.

I propose a 12 team playoff, which includes every conference champion or co-champion ranked among the top 16, and any independent ranked in the top 12. The remaining spots (if any) go to the highest ranked runners-up. If there are more than 12 champions or co-champions, the 12 highest ranked are selected.

The four highest ranked champions get a first round bye, and host the second round games. First round hosts are the four highest ranked remaining champions or co-champions. First round games are played over the Thanksgiving weekend and the quarter finals a week later.

If this model had been in place last year, the tourney bracket would have looked like this:

#5 Mizzou (11-1, 7-1 SEC) hosts #9 South Carolina (10-2, 6-2 SEC). Winner faces #4 Alabama (11-1, 7-1 SEC).

#10 Michigan State (11-1, 8-0 B1G) hosts #16 UCF (11-1, 8-0 AAC). Winner at #2 Ohio State (12-0, 8-0 B1G).

#11 Arizona St (10-2, 8-1 PAC) hosts #14 Northern Illinois (12-0, 8-0 MAC). Winner at #1 Florida State (12-0, 8-0 ACC).

#6 Baylor (11-1, 8-1 Big12) hosts #7 Stanford (10-2, 7-2 PAC). Winner takes on #3 Auburn (11-1, 7-1 SEC).

Last year (2013) there were 3 teams that were outright conference champs, but ranked outside the top ten (Arizona State, Northern Illinois and Central Florida). Two of them are currently in G5 conferences. There were only two at-large selections, both with 2 losses - Stanford and South Carolina.

Bowl winners that were excluded include Louisville (12-1), Oregon (11-2), Clemson (11-2) and Oklahoma (11-2). Could one of these have won it all? I suppose. But none would have been favored to make the final four.

(06-01-2014 12:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 08:21 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I agree with nos. 2 and 4 (kinda) but not nos. 1 and 3.

1.) There is some logic to this one but if the revenue is shared and structured properly, an 8-team playoff will definitely make more money for each league than will a 4-team or even a 6-team playoff.

3.) It is a myth that people don't watch college basketball because of the NCAA Tournament. If the tournament killed interest in the regular season, we would have seen evidence of that in the 80s and 90s. However the ratings were strong then. They only changed when more and more kids began to skip college altogether or were one and done.

Also, if the presence of playoffs hurt interest in the regular season, the NFL too would have poor regular season ratings. Instead it has gangbusters regular season ratings.

The reason for the decrease in college basketball interest is that none of its stars ever stay so it is challenging to keep up with all of the turnover and fruitless to invest one's self too deeply into things.

I submit that like the NFL playoffs does with the NFL's regular season, the NCAA Tournament HELPS raise interest in college basketball's regular season. In fact, were it not for the NCAA Tournament, men's college basketball's television ratings would be comparable to those of women's college basketball.

A full blown 8-team or 16-team college football playoff would HELP raise interest in college football's regular season because a LOT more games would have some sort of impact on the national championship chase than is the case now.

Basketball's problems are:
1. Fans have learned regular season has little value. The growth of the league tournament as an event leaves most teams playing for conference tournament seeding and a small subset know their NCAA fate well before their league tournament because of the large number of at-large spots.
2. The explosion in the number of CFB post-season games in December means the casual fan barely knows CBB is playing until the start of league play. When the Dance went to 64 there 18 bowl games that fall. Six were played pre-Christmas. There was a 94% increase in bowl games over 30 years despite only a 24% increase in CFB top division schools.
3. NBA is far more accessible to fans on TV than it was when the NCAA Tournament expanded to 64. 1985 was only 4 years removed from part of the NBA Finals being shown on tape delay. There were 7 fewer teams in NBA which has grown 30% since then.
4. Stars leaving may impact national viewership and fan interest at a tiny number of schools but most CBB teams have never lost a player early to the NBA and very few have lost one recently.

I wouldn't say that CBB has problems (it still generates lots of money) so much as CBB has a ceiling for TV appeal that is a lot lower than CFB. The 64-team tournament isn't a factor in limiting the interest of the CBB regular season, IMO.

There's nothing they can do to fix any of the issues limiting TV appeal -- other than getting rid of conference basketball tournaments, which isn't going to happen. They're still going to have TV attention for CBB washed away by CFB, and much more so by the NFL, until February. The only thing they could do to address that is to push the NCAA tournament back a few weeks, to end the last weekend in April instead of the first weekend in April. That would extend the TV window where CBB gets a lot of attention for 3-4 more weeks. But the tournament can't be shifted while CBS owns the TV rights.

(06-01-2014 08:21 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I agree with nos. 2 and 4 (kinda) but not nos. 1 and 3.

1.) There is some logic to this one but if the revenue is shared and structured properly, an 8-team playoff will definitely make more money for each league than will a 4-team or even a 6-team playoff.

3.) It is a myth that people don't watch college basketball because of the NCAA Tournament. If the tournament killed interest in the regular season, we would have seen evidence of that in the 80s and 90s. However the ratings were strong then. They only changed when more and more kids began to skip college altogether or were one and done.

Also, if the presence of playoffs hurt interest in the regular season, the NFL too would have poor regular season ratings. Instead it has gangbusters regular season ratings.

The reason for the decrease in college basketball interest is that none of its stars ever stay so it is challenging to keep up with all of the turnover and fruitless to invest one's self too deeply into things.

I submit that like the NFL playoffs does with the NFL's regular season, the NCAA Tournament HELPS raise interest in college basketball's regular season. In fact, were it not for the NCAA Tournament, men's college basketball's television ratings would be comparable to those of women's college basketball.

A full blown 8-team or 16-team college football playoff would HELP raise interest in college football's regular season because a LOT more games would have some sort of impact on the national championship chase than is the case now.

For basketball, the value of the regular season has been terribly diminished --but its not the NCAA tournament that causes it. Its the fact that the NCAA auto-bid is tied to the conference tournament and not the regular season championship. Basically, the regular season is 18 games of "pool play" that does little more than set the seeding for the conference tournament. Get rid of the conference tournament, and the regular season regains a lot more interest.

As for football, the perfect number is 8. Not too big, not too small. All 5 major conference champs get a slot--that makes the regular season and conference races important. The highest rated G5 champ gets a slot--giving meaning to the G5 races. Then two wild card slots means that the #1 ands #2 teams would always be involved (prevents upsets from fouling up the championship, allows access for indy teams, and makes it possible for the SEC to have 3 teams in the playoff).

"2. A way to make each conference's regular season and championship game matter even MORE...is to give an automatic bid to the Power 5 conference's champions. Last year, the big Stanford/ASU Pac-12 title game meant very little (much like the Nebraska/Wisconsin Big Ten game in 2012). If those teams are guaranteed a spot, what you are actually doing is giving the Power 5 a quasi quarterfinal round that they get to pocket all the money for."

So (looking at last season) you're saying Baylor would be more worthy to make the playoffs than Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon, Missouri or Clemson (who did't win their conferences)?

Automatic bids should not be handed out - let the 4, 6 or 8 teams earn their place in the playoff. I want to see the best teams in the playoff - I don't care about "fairness" - this isn't peewee footbal where everyone gets a trophy. If all four teams come from the SEC, then so be it. Let the other conferences produce better competition.

(06-01-2014 12:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 08:28 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  Hancock and others are still saying the 12 year deal is locked in. Even if it eventually changes it probably won't be any time soon.

One big issue that people overlook is that the more playoffs that are added, it causes problems for the bowl structure that are significant.

Deals were just created for the CFP Bowls--although apparently not signed yet.

Bowls on the outside like the Alamo all the way down to the pre Christmas matchups just signed long term deals with conferences for at least the next six years.

Seems for sure that it would be at least seven years before the discussion for playoff expansion could executed. If the playoffs do expand then it probably isn't going to be for more G5 schools to be brought on board. It would be for all P5 champions, then probably a secondary team from the major conferences. With the changes taking shape now no reason to believe G5 inclusion would be a significant factor. The strength of schedule component is still going to be there and there isn't a G5 conference with significant sos.

USA Today reported that B1G and Pac-12 will make $50 millionish from CFP and $40 million each from their contract bowl. SEC and Big XII something similar to that and ACC will get around $28 million from the Rose.

Why would B1G, B12, P12, SEC be eager to increase playoff and diminish their contract bowl revenue?

My guess is the money for the entire playoff would increase significantly and the split would remain 70-30. They wouldn't be losing any money---it might be arranged differently, but the P5 conferences would walk away richer. They always do.

(06-02-2014 10:46 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  "2. A way to make each conference's regular season and championship game matter even MORE...is to give an automatic bid to the Power 5 conference's champions. Last year, the big Stanford/ASU Pac-12 title game meant very little (much like the Nebraska/Wisconsin Big Ten game in 2012). If those teams are guaranteed a spot, what you are actually doing is giving the Power 5 a quasi quarterfinal round that they get to pocket all the money for."

So (looking at last season) you're saying Baylor would be more worthy to make the playoffs than Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon, Missouri or Clemson (who did't win their conferences)?

Automatic bids should not be handed out - let the 4, 6 or 8 teams earn their place in the playoff. I want to see the best teams in the playoff - I don't care about "fairness" - this isn't peewee footbal where everyone gets a trophy. If all four teams come from the SEC, then so be it. Let the other conferences produce better competition.

I'd like to see the best teams in the playoff, too. The problem is, I have no way of knowing who they are, and neither do you or anybody else. The only thing we know from the history of football rankings is that they get it wrong about as often as they get it right. In the last 15 years of the BCS, the #2 team beat #1 more often than they lost. If the polls were "wrong" about which was better, #1 or #2, why should we think they do any better about #3, #4, #5 etc?

Fact is, the #3 and #4 teams also lost almost half the time when they faced a lower ranked team in their bowl game. So you tell me - how do we know which the best teams are?

(06-02-2014 10:47 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 12:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 08:28 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  Hancock and others are still saying the 12 year deal is locked in. Even if it eventually changes it probably won't be any time soon.

One big issue that people overlook is that the more playoffs that are added, it causes problems for the bowl structure that are significant.

Deals were just created for the CFP Bowls--although apparently not signed yet.

Bowls on the outside like the Alamo all the way down to the pre Christmas matchups just signed long term deals with conferences for at least the next six years.

Seems for sure that it would be at least seven years before the discussion for playoff expansion could executed. If the playoffs do expand then it probably isn't going to be for more G5 schools to be brought on board. It would be for all P5 champions, then probably a secondary team from the major conferences. With the changes taking shape now no reason to believe G5 inclusion would be a significant factor. The strength of schedule component is still going to be there and there isn't a G5 conference with significant sos.

USA Today reported that B1G and Pac-12 will make $50 millionish from CFP and $40 million each from their contract bowl. SEC and Big XII something similar to that and ACC will get around $28 million from the Rose.

Why would B1G, B12, P12, SEC be eager to increase playoff and diminish their contract bowl revenue?

My guess is the money for the entire playoff would increase significantly and the split would remain 70-30. They wouldn't be losing any money---it might be arranged differently, but the P5 conferences would walk away richer. They always do.

If you are P12 and B1G what exactly is your incentive to enrich ACC any more than you currently do?