Of course the Wild Card Games are going to do good ratings when you have towns deprived of success for years. Pirates/Royals, they have been national stories. People want to watch a good story unfold. I'd imagine the ratings will taper down now that we move into Games 1/2 of these drawn out series, but the play-in game has only added to the novelty of the MLB postseason. I didn't like the system at first. I need a bigger sample set to work with before I deem this extra game good for baseball, but so far so good. But obviously, taking one month out of the year with these extra teams and compelling games/series, baseball is going to do decent ratings in October. It is akin to March Madness. It just sucks because you are going against NFL and CF every weekend, when the games are almost as big if not bigger (in CF) than Games 1/2 of an MLB postseason series. Baseball can't win in that scenario, whereas March Madness has its own island to dominate.

Onto college football, do Bowls have trouble selling out these games? Yes, they do. Do networks want to televise games with empty stadiums? No, they do not. And that's the inherent problem taking games to neutral sites. 1 vs 16 is a waste of a game. You have to go down the line until you hit 6 vs 11 or 7 vs 10 until you find a game that is competitive and watchable; the rest of the games will have trouble selling out at a neutral site.

Now lets go to 8 teams, who makes the playoff? The P5, G5 and two At-Large right? And where is the first round going to be played? You have three travel weekends. Think G5 is going to make any of those trips? Think a lower tier P5 is going to be pumped up playing Alabama in Tuscaloosa round 1? Would we watch the games? Yeah, we would. But since it's only about bottom line, how much would the Bowl that would have otherwise hosted that lower tier P5 conference be losing? How much of that fanbase travel would they lose out on? If they are traveling to Tuscaloosa, the would be Bowl receives absolutely no revenue (or much less after getting stuck with a low profile matchup), and the road playoff school only gets money from the TV contract.

The Bowls have too much to lose in this scenario. The fans have too much to lose. At the end of the day, until you can justify that all P5 and one G5 champion are deserving of playing for a national title, there is no need to push this. 6 teams is no different than 8 IMO. Just more opportunities to lose and get in. That's not what CF needs at the moment. What it needs is more balance nationally and increased stakes in the regular season, which comes into question a bit with this 4 team playoff (which HAD to be done to avoid conundrums like two SEC teams from the same division in the title game). 6-8 teams is not the answer until they have a solution to the travel problem, the minimization of the CCG's (which comes into serious question without automatic P5 qualification), and of course getting fans to buy tickets.

(10-04-2014 11:54 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 11:41 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-03-2014 08:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Right now we will have three games. What I have said will happen is that we move to 6 teams. That means two more games, two more bowl games. You are overplaying that talking point of loss. More bowls wanted to be in the Playoff system than it would allow. I am sorry but you are wrong, I don't even have to go into the math.

Yeah, you do. Seeing as how if I were "wrong," well there would be a bigger playoff right now, now wouldn't there be? SMH. That would mean the powers that be agree with me. And even though you have tirelessly argued against this for years, as I personally worked with a group who tried to lure a bowl, and we spent well over six months studying the financials and how to budget a bowl and where the income comes from (or at least me personally, others spent longer on it) I know for a fact that I am not only right on this, but am actually being conservative on it. And as history points to me being right (reluctance to end bowls, reluctance against a playoff that requires teams to play more than one game, a plus one format instead of a full blown 8-16 team playoff), every single piece of evidence on the matter is on my side of the argument. So yes, if you want to prove it wrong, you ABSOLUTELY must "go into the math" or you are flat wrong. And that would be end of discussion without actual verifiable numbers, to back up a scenario that both the bowls AND conferences have resisted for many years. What, you think they hate making more money?

Really? Because they didn't go right to a larger Playoff, THAT means they wont? That is silly but by all means, hold on to that talking point if you like. They didn't leap into the Playoff, they stepped into it. The Powers that be are extremely traditional and of course they didn't want to leap, they took a step. It is pretty obvious that they are going to have to go further. You can see that in the media.


So let me get this straight. You think that the teams that end up in the Playoffs are making less money? You think the Bowls are making less money? You aren't even being specific, you are making a very generalized statement in saying that. More Bowls wanted to be part of THIS Playoff yet somehow you are saying no more Bowls would want to be part of a future expanded playoff. Ok...that makes no sense at all but go ahead and continue telling yourself that it does.

You are flat out wrong, the reason I don't have to go into math is because MORE BOWLS WANTED TO BE PART OF THE PLAYOFF. That ends the argument right there. So go ahead and continue arguing your pointless talking point. It is false, period.

Time will prove although by the time it does I am sure you will have miraculously changed your position and will try to claim it will have always been your perspective. I have seen that happen over and over around here. If you are on the side of traditionalism on this topic, then you are likely going to be wrong eventually.

H1 I know that you think that when you real at something over and over, and stomp your feet the rest of us are supposed to assume you know what you are talking about. But we all know you still don't acutally know what you speak. As I said, see I ised to do this for a living. I actually know what I am talking about. You are assuming. And your are assuming wrong.

I didn't say that because the playoff started smaller it would not expand "just because" it started small. I said it was purposely made small to protect their revenue streams because they know some of them will dry up if they expand a playoff, and they don't beleive they will make it up with TV. And as I said: you don't have to believe me. But history shows they fought tooth and nail against it, because they (bowls AND conferences) were and are afraid of losing money.

And your retort is asinine: bowls wanting to be a part of the playoffs doesn't change what I said. They want to be part of it because it was a chance to move up in the heirerarchy. They wanted to be part of the four. But they aren't keen on being part of eight.

As I said, if you want to write such a thing, you better show theath. Because right now, "the math" shows that they fought this for years.and don't give me that dumb assed "their traditional" defense. These are money grubbing enrtities: there is no fukking way they are turning down all of the supposed money because of tradition. They don't want to expand it because bowl host cities make some $2-3 BILLION combined each year from bowl travelors. This is before espn writes a check. That is what they want to protect, and they won't make any changes (willingly) to disrupt he destination aspect of it. That is why even when the playoff concept was coming up, they were going to use a "plus one" system because the bowls involved (yes those bowls) did not want any system that gave the fans any incentive to not come to their game too.

Expanding the playoffs means the access bowls are more or less done as a major entity (they'd still be good bowls, but basically like the old non-BCS bowls). That means no more $40 million check for the SEC in top of the playoff money from the sugar bowl. No more extra eight figure check from the Orange bowl. So now they have to make that money up from TV - and since the money is shared with four other conferences, it means the four extra playoff games need to back ally generate $300 million MORE in TV revenue than the current accsss bowls JUsT for the SEC to break even. Note that would mean the four extra games would need to be worth as much as the current playoffs are, again just for the sec to break even. These numbers also hold true for the big ten. So either the two most powerful conferences are going to voluntarily money over what they get now, or they won't be making this move unless forced to.

So yeah, show your math. Or you might just want to let this one go.

No Yankees or Red Sox, no Phillies or Braves in these MLB playoffs. That should drive casual interest and tv ratings up as the postseason moves along.

Kansas City advancing to the ALCS for the first time in almost 30 years won't hurt either

(10-05-2014 10:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 11:54 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 11:41 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-03-2014 08:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Right now we will have three games. What I have said will happen is that we move to 6 teams. That means two more games, two more bowl games. You are overplaying that talking point of loss. More bowls wanted to be in the Playoff system than it would allow. I am sorry but you are wrong, I don't even have to go into the math.

Yeah, you do. Seeing as how if I were "wrong," well there would be a bigger playoff right now, now wouldn't there be? SMH. That would mean the powers that be agree with me. And even though you have tirelessly argued against this for years, as I personally worked with a group who tried to lure a bowl, and we spent well over six months studying the financials and how to budget a bowl and where the income comes from (or at least me personally, others spent longer on it) I know for a fact that I am not only right on this, but am actually being conservative on it. And as history points to me being right (reluctance to end bowls, reluctance against a playoff that requires teams to play more than one game, a plus one format instead of a full blown 8-16 team playoff), every single piece of evidence on the matter is on my side of the argument. So yes, if you want to prove it wrong, you ABSOLUTELY must "go into the math" or you are flat wrong. And that would be end of discussion without actual verifiable numbers, to back up a scenario that both the bowls AND conferences have resisted for many years. What, you think they hate making more money?

Really? Because they didn't go right to a larger Playoff, THAT means they wont? That is silly but by all means, hold on to that talking point if you like. They didn't leap into the Playoff, they stepped into it. The Powers that be are extremely traditional and of course they didn't want to leap, they took a step. It is pretty obvious that they are going to have to go further. You can see that in the media.


So let me get this straight. You think that the teams that end up in the Playoffs are making less money? You think the Bowls are making less money? You aren't even being specific, you are making a very generalized statement in saying that. More Bowls wanted to be part of THIS Playoff yet somehow you are saying no more Bowls would want to be part of a future expanded playoff. Ok...that makes no sense at all but go ahead and continue telling yourself that it does.

You are flat out wrong, the reason I don't have to go into math is because MORE BOWLS WANTED TO BE PART OF THE PLAYOFF. That ends the argument right there. So go ahead and continue arguing your pointless talking point. It is false, period.

Time will prove although by the time it does I am sure you will have miraculously changed your position and will try to claim it will have always been your perspective. I have seen that happen over and over around here. If you are on the side of traditionalism on this topic, then you are likely going to be wrong eventually.

H1 I know that you think that when you real at something over and over, and stomp your feet the rest of us are supposed to assume you know what you are talking about. But we all know you still don't acutally know what you speak. As I said, see I ised to do this for a living. I actually know what I am talking about. You are assuming. And your are assuming wrong.

I didn't say that because the playoff started smaller it would not expand "just because" it started small. I said it was purposely made small to protect their revenue streams because they know some of them will dry up if they expand a playoff, and they don't beleive they will make it up with TV. And as I said: you don't have to believe me. But history shows they fought tooth and nail against it, because they (bowls AND conferences) were and are afraid of losing money.

And your retort is asinine: bowls wanting to be a part of the playoffs doesn't change what I said. They want to be part of it because it was a chance to move up in the heirerarchy. They wanted to be part of the four. But they aren't keen on being part of eight.

As I said, if you want to write such a thing, you better show theath. Because right now, "the math" shows that they fought this for years.and don't give me that dumb assed "their traditional" defense. These are money grubbing enrtities: there is no fukking way they are turning down all of the supposed money because of tradition. They don't want to expand it because bowl host cities make some $2-3 BILLION combined each year from bowl travelors. This is before espn writes a check. That is what they want to protect, and they won't make any changes (willingly) to disrupt he destination aspect of it. That is why even when the playoff concept was coming up, they were going to use a "plus one" system because the bowls involved (yes those bowls) did not want any system that gave the fans any incentive to not come to their game too.

Expanding the playoffs means the access bowls are more or less done as a major entity (they'd still be good bowls, but basically like the old non-BCS bowls). That means no more $40 million check for the SEC in top of the playoff money from the sugar bowl. No more extra eight figure check from the Orange bowl. So now they have to make that money up from TV - and since the money is shared with four other conferences, it means the four extra playoff games need to back ally generate $300 million MORE in TV revenue than the current accsss bowls JUsT for the SEC to break even. Note that would mean the four extra games would need to be worth as much as the current playoffs are, again just for the sec to break even. These numbers also hold true for the big ten. So either the two most powerful conferences are going to voluntarily money over what they get now, or they won't be making this move unless forced to.

So yeah, show your math. Or you might just want to let this one go.

So, you are saying the Playoff wont expand? Let's get it on record here. You can blow your smoke all over the place and say you are in the biz and you know best and I don't know **** but lets cut to the point.

You are saying the Playoff wont expand and I am saying it will. Right?

Expansion may happen, Fb Tournies will not. You can't add many more games. In BB, or baseball you can do a tournie of 8 or 12 in 3 or 4 days. You can't do that in football. The sports are totally different animals.

TV deals are settled, and for the most part so has expansion. until we start getting near TV deals again there is no driving force for more change. The only conf with any real reason to expand, (and they can't see it, just like the old BE couldn't see it ) is the B12. They have long term survivability issues. But current $$ blinds them to it. and 3 to 5 of them may pay a big price in the end, see Uconn, USF, Cincy.

For all of the talk about how "great" the MLB wild card games did in the ratings, 2 or 3 regular season CFB games get better ratings every week.

(10-06-2014 07:26 AM)orangefan Wrote:  For all of the talk about how "great" the MLB wild card games did in the ratings, 2 or 3 regular season CFB games get better ratings every week.

It is not a direct comparison of ratings. What I am saying is that if baseball gets that big of a boost from direct elimination one game post season games then it is obvious the mechanism is what works today.

Post season, elimination, one and done. CFB post season gets similar ratings boosts. You got to compare the apples to the apples and oranges to the oranges.

The playoff will expand to 8 at some point, just a matter of how the 8 will be selected. My personal preference would be the committee or whatever just selects the top 8 teams regardless of conference, but I don't see that being accepted. The best case scenario for the G5's would be the 5 P5 champs, the best G5 champ, and 2 at large teams. The worst case scenario for the G5's is the 5 P5 champs and 3 at large teams. I would guess it's either going to end up being scenario 2 or 3, and it's going to depend on how much pressure the G5's can put and how much leverage they actually have.

With all the one loss teams this weekend, to me, it's obvious that adding more teams is going to dilute the regular season. Sometimes you have a case for 5 teams that may be ranked 1-2. Some times it could be even more teams. The BCS had no answer for these scenarios. But many years you had clear cut 1 vs 2. The point is, it's very difficult to go undefeated in any conference. Not impossible, but difficult. To me, 4 teams is probably the max you can bang out while preserving the importance of "every Saturday". If you ranked the playoff teams for the past 12 years according to BCS standings, odds are there is a big gap between 1/2 and 3/4 most years. That doesn't make it right to say this #4 is more deserving than this #5, but what it does is mean is, win all your games in a P5 conference if you want a near guaranteed berth. That's what a four team playoff does. Once you start going 6-8 clubs, the regular season becomes a regional entity and nobody outside those regions will watch the games, aside from die hard CF fans.

(10-06-2014 12:08 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So, you are saying the Playoff wont expand? Let's get it on record here. You can blow your smoke all over the place and say you are in the biz and you know best and I don't know **** but lets cut to the point.

You are saying the Playoff wont expand and I am saying it will. Right?

Actually what I said was expansion of the playoffs would result in less money. I did not say they would not expand. I said they would not expand voluntarily. I must have used that word six times.

Under the current conference structures, i think the playoffs work much better at 6 or 8 and 5 auto bids to p5 conference champs. With 6 you reward the top 2 teams with a bye in the playoffs but having only 1 open spot might not be enough. Just play a round of games the week after conference champ games and everything is set. I like the double header concept with 2 games at one site.

(10-06-2014 08:37 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The playoff will expand to 8 at some point, just a matter of how the 8 will be selected. My personal preference would be the committee or whatever just selects the top 8 teams regardless of conference, but I don't see that being accepted. The best case scenario for the G5's would be the 5 P5 champs, the best G5 champ, and 2 at large teams. The worst case scenario for the G5's is the 5 P5 champs and 3 at large teams. I would guess it's either going to end up being scenario 2 or 3, and it's going to depend on how much pressure the G5's can put and how much leverage they actually have.

12 is a good number for the playoff, if it ever gets there. 5 P5 champs, best G5 champ, and 6 at-large teams. Half autobids and half at-large, like the NCAA basketball tournament. Four games the first week, four the second week, then two semifinal games the next week, and the final on the second or third Monday in January.

(10-03-2014 12:01 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-02-2014 10:28 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I agree that making the Wildcard game one game for baseball was a very good approach. It accomplished two things, a) it created two compelling games, b) it made the divisional races in the regular season more meaningful. That was because of things fundamental to baseball, namely: home field advantage not being that huge and thus the old wildcard not much different than winning the division and the difficulty of having a winner take all game otherwise.

Conference tournaments for football are a very different animal and mainly for one reason and that's that we already have big meaningful nationally relevent regular season college football games. Now I'll grant it's possible we end up going this way eventually and maybe there is more money that way, but my money would be on it costing rather than making the conferences money in the long run (especially if it required expansion).

Let's suppose I'm wrong though and we go to semi-finals though. I'll guarantee one thing. They will not have 4 divisions with the winners of each going. No conference will take the risk of having the best two in one division and having another division with a team that might well have an overall loosing record go. What this will ultimately do though is destroy the stakes we see in the regularly season. If the top 4 teams are in the conference playoff, then the stakes just aren't there for enough regular season games. How many people on the west coast really care about who is #4 or #5 in the ACC, etc?

I don't see how they lose money through expansion. Every expansion that has happened has gained money for the expanding conference. I am sorry but there is no logic in the opposing statement. Expansion happens for money, guaranteed money, so to say opposite is just "farting in the wind" so to speak.

Now, your talking point about divisions and leading into a tournament is very valid. I will grant you all those points as being logical and feasible. Where I differ in opinion is that it is a bad thing to have one division winner be garbage. That is simply a way of manipulating the championship game to have your conference's top team in it for sure. In the end, the best finish is for your top team to make it through the tournament anyways right?

A championship game at the end builds credibility. Well two wins instead of one builds even more.

The Big Ten and PAC both got paid 20 million by Fox for their championship games. If that game is worth 20 million then the Semifinals should be worth 15 million. Do the math, that is 50 million dollars. If I am right and we end up with 16 team conferences then that is about 3.8 million divied out per school.

I disagree completely in regards to it destroying the regular season though. Once again, I think that is your traditional bias shining through and I can respect that. That does not make you right though. Baseball's regular season has died because it is boring, long and the games are far too numerous. College football has none of those problems. The regular season games will be just as followed as they are today. ESPN will see to that.

To go even further, four team divisions mean those three games in division will be extremely valuable. You line up all three to be played at the end of the conference season and ratings will be through the roof as the race for the divisions will be up in the air until then.

This isn't hard, if I can figure it out then the extremely capable marketing folks can figure it out too. In fact, they likely already have it figured out and they talked the EXTREMELY traditional folks in Major League Baseball to follow the lead of the Network.

The secret to success in this day and age is no secret.

Please remember the regular season is a playoff to see who gets seeded, then it is when or go home.

(10-06-2014 11:45 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:08 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So, you are saying the Playoff wont expand? Let's get it on record here. You can blow your smoke all over the place and say you are in the biz and you know best and I don't know **** but lets cut to the point.

You are saying the Playoff wont expand and I am saying it will. Right?

Actually what I said was expansion of the playoffs would result in less money. I did not say they would not expand. I said they would not expand voluntarily. I must have used that word six times.

Really? My whole point is that it will expand. If I mentioned money, it was a minor part. When you have other Bowls that want to be part of the Playoff, when you have tickets for Playoff games already selling for more than the BCS Championship last year...these are all symbols of a perception that there is more money in the Playoff.

If you want to say otherwise then go right ahead. I really do not give a damn. My point all along is that the Playoff will be expanded sooner rather than later. If you want to say that due to lack of payout there wont be an expansion then ok but if you are going to agree with me and then still argue over money...well just go ahead and talk to yourself on this one because I cant believe we went through all that while you f'n agree with me.

(10-06-2014 04:23 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(10-03-2014 12:01 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-02-2014 10:28 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I agree that making the Wildcard game one game for baseball was a very good approach. It accomplished two things, a) it created two compelling games, b) it made the divisional races in the regular season more meaningful. That was because of things fundamental to baseball, namely: home field advantage not being that huge and thus the old wildcard not much different than winning the division and the difficulty of having a winner take all game otherwise.

Conference tournaments for football are a very different animal and mainly for one reason and that's that we already have big meaningful nationally relevent regular season college football games. Now I'll grant it's possible we end up going this way eventually and maybe there is more money that way, but my money would be on it costing rather than making the conferences money in the long run (especially if it required expansion).

Let's suppose I'm wrong though and we go to semi-finals though. I'll guarantee one thing. They will not have 4 divisions with the winners of each going. No conference will take the risk of having the best two in one division and having another division with a team that might well have an overall loosing record go. What this will ultimately do though is destroy the stakes we see in the regularly season. If the top 4 teams are in the conference playoff, then the stakes just aren't there for enough regular season games. How many people on the west coast really care about who is #4 or #5 in the ACC, etc?

I don't see how they lose money through expansion. Every expansion that has happened has gained money for the expanding conference. I am sorry but there is no logic in the opposing statement. Expansion happens for money, guaranteed money, so to say opposite is just "farting in the wind" so to speak.

Now, your talking point about divisions and leading into a tournament is very valid. I will grant you all those points as being logical and feasible. Where I differ in opinion is that it is a bad thing to have one division winner be garbage. That is simply a way of manipulating the championship game to have your conference's top team in it for sure. In the end, the best finish is for your top team to make it through the tournament anyways right?

A championship game at the end builds credibility. Well two wins instead of one builds even more.

The Big Ten and PAC both got paid 20 million by Fox for their championship games. If that game is worth 20 million then the Semifinals should be worth 15 million. Do the math, that is 50 million dollars. If I am right and we end up with 16 team conferences then that is about 3.8 million divied out per school.

I disagree completely in regards to it destroying the regular season though. Once again, I think that is your traditional bias shining through and I can respect that. That does not make you right though. Baseball's regular season has died because it is boring, long and the games are far too numerous. College football has none of those problems. The regular season games will be just as followed as they are today. ESPN will see to that.

To go even further, four team divisions mean those three games in division will be extremely valuable. You line up all three to be played at the end of the conference season and ratings will be through the roof as the race for the divisions will be up in the air until then.

This isn't hard, if I can figure it out then the extremely capable marketing folks can figure it out too. In fact, they likely already have it figured out and they talked the EXTREMELY traditional folks in Major League Baseball to follow the lead of the Network.

The secret to success in this day and age is no secret.

Please remember the regular season is a playoff to see who gets seeded, then it is when or go home.

Ok....

(10-06-2014 07:27 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 11:45 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:08 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So, you are saying the Playoff wont expand? Let's get it on record here. You can blow your smoke all over the place and say you are in the biz and you know best and I don't know **** but lets cut to the point.

You are saying the Playoff wont expand and I am saying it will. Right?

Actually what I said was expansion of the playoffs would result in less money. I did not say they would not expand. I said they would not expand voluntarily. I must have used that word six times.

Really? My whole point is that it will expand. If I mentioned money, it was a minor part.

What? It was THE VERY FIRST THING YOU MENTIONED, and was the ENTIRE thing you were arguing with me about. Do you even pay attention to what you right, or just say ish for no reason? And seriously, the fact that more teams want to be a part of it, and are paying more to be a part of it, does not in any way mean it will be expanded. If anything, it is a good reason to keep it more restrictive, to drive up the price. The NFL keeps selling their TV packages for more money: it doesn't mean they will then start selling two AFC packages, or two NFC packages. The two are unrelated. It's like you aren't even trying to make a coherent argument. And yet you never once disputed the multitude of facts on the topic. Also, just to note, the prices are listed higher: they haven't actually sold out. Not exactly proof.

You made this point! And it was the MAIN point you were making as to why it would expand. Even now, you are tying to say it isn't about money to save face, then say it is about money when using the it is the point about bowls trying to get in. Make up your mind? SMD. You are boxed in the corner, and now try to claim you never made that point. Even though it was your hypothesis, then you tried to say I was wrong.

It's like you forget what you actually wrote is still here for anyone to read. SMH

Oh... zzzz?

(10-07-2014 08:56 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 07:27 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 11:45 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:08 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So, you are saying the Playoff wont expand? Let's get it on record here. You can blow your smoke all over the place and say you are in the biz and you know best and I don't know **** but lets cut to the point.

You are saying the Playoff wont expand and I am saying it will. Right?

Actually what I said was expansion of the playoffs would result in less money. I did not say they would not expand. I said they would not expand voluntarily. I must have used that word six times.

Really? My whole point is that it will expand. If I mentioned money, it was a minor part.

What? It was THE VERY FIRST THING YOU MENTIONED, and was the ENTIRE thing you were arguing with me about. Do you even pay attention to what you right, or just say ish for no reason?

Oh... zzzz?

Do I pay attention to what I "write"? Yes, more than anyone else. Thank you.

So you agree that I am right, clearly with your Freudian slip, that the Playoff will expand. Your argument amount money doesn't matter.

Apparently you don't. Or you just can't read or remember it. That was your point, and even now still is. Seriously you can't be this dumb. You just wrote. "If I mentioned money, it was a minor part. When you have other Bowls that want to be part of the Playoff, when you have tickets for Playoff games already selling for more than the BCS Championship last year...these are all symbols of a perception that there is more money in the Playoff." So you are saying that this, your ENTIRE (new) point, is not about money either?

Really. C'mon now. Give it up. You do this all the time, and like to try to change arguments when busted. But you won't get this one. We can all see it.

So..are you saying that the Playoff will or wont expand? I realize you have a rather strange fixation on me, I don't really get it but whatever. The point still remains. Does all your so called math mean the Playoff will never expand?

I bet you wont answer and will continue with yet another Ad hom rant against me when it is plainly obvious that you are arguing for no reason at all because you know the playoff will expand. Come on...just say it and stop trying to make the debate into something it is not.

I believe there is more money in it, you don't. You have provided your opinion as to why there isn't, I have provided mine as to why there is. I have stated that the Playoff will expand. You will not state one way or the other. You want to talk about obvious? Pretty obvious you just want to be argumentative with me and are highly fixated on me, in a rather disturbing fashion.

Will...or will not the Playoff expand, in your opinion? Can you answer that or do you know that will only prove you are arguing for argument sakes because you know I am right?

As to my whole point being about money? I created this *** **** thread and the original premise was about high ratings in the one game elimination MLB wildcard games and how that could correlate to COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF EXPANSION. The thread is about expansion, not just money from it. It really isn't that hard, so stop trying to obfuscate the situation by saying "we" instead of just you.

It is not me that is trying to mislead, it is you adcorbett. So either answer the real question or move along and get over your fixation on me. Your "Troublemaker" moniker is quite fitting in this instance, isn't it?