I saw TCU Coach Gary Patterson on TV some time over the past week or so, and he had an interesting idea. He thought to accommodate an 8 school playoff, conference championship games would have to be eliminated. The more I've thought about it, the more the idea has grown on me.

The biggest objections to adding more schools to the playoff are going to be the additional time away from class, the injury risk to players of adding yet a further game to the schedule, where these games would fit into the calendar, and the burden on the teams and fans to travel to up to 4 neutral site sames. In a single stroke, these concerns could be eliminated.

I'd propose playing two games on what is now Championship Saturday (the first Saturday in December) and two the following Saturday (which currently has the Army-Navy game, but no NFL games). Playoff games start at 3:30 or 4 and 8 or 8:30 pm.

Because these games would replace the CCG's on the schedule, they could be played at neutral sites. Current CCG sites, like Atlanta, Charlotte, San Francisco and Indianapolis, plus other bowls or NFL stadiums, could all be considered. It may be useful to try to regionalize matchups if possible so, at a minimum, top seeded teams could be placed closer to their campus than their opponents.

I'd move Army-Navy to the first Saturday in December, to be played at Noon or 1 pm. If either school is in contention for a CFP spot, they'd play the second week of the playoff.

I'd provide automatic bids to the ACC, B12, B1G, P12 and SEC. (As an aside, I might condition the B12's autobid on going to 12 schools). I'd guaranty one slot to the highest ranked G5 conference champion, and have two at large slots.

While Conference Championship Games have been lucrative for the conferences, the additional round of playoffs would be more lucrative. This past season, the SEC CCG earned a 7.8 rating, the ACC a 6.2, the P12 a 3.7 and the B1G a 3.5. The highest rated B12 game that day earned a 2.8. By comparison, the CFP games earned a 15.2 (Sugar), 14.8 (Rose) and 18.9 (NCG). They are the three most viewed shows in the history of cable television. The four first round games would likely earn a 10.0 or higher. This would allow ESPN to increase the payouts to each of the conferences with CCG's over and above the rights fees paid for the CCG's.

Another benefit of eliminating the CCG's would be to avoid the risk of creating lame duck late season games for schools that have already qualified for a CCG. For instance, NFL teams already having clinched a playoff spot (eg this year's Patriots), barely show up for the last week of the season. If the ACC CCG winner had been guaranteed a CFP slot this year, Georgia Tech and Florida State may have taken the same approach in their rivalry games. That would hurt college football. With no CCG, each would have an incentive to play hard knowing that a playoff slot or seeding were on the line.

So do conferences just do away with divisions?

(01-13-2015 04:21 PM)goofus Wrote:  So do conferences just do away with divisions?

yes

This is funny because the Championship Sub Division has had a 16 team playoff and has had little issues with that. All this chatter is just BS while they figure out a way to squeeze a few more dollars out of the Fans and general public.

(01-13-2015 04:27 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  This is funny because the Championship Sub Division has had a 16 team playoff and has had little issues with that. All this chatter is just BS while they figure out a way to squeeze a few more dollars out of the Fans and general public.

The FCS playoff field now has 24 teams. The issues with a larger FBS playoff don't have anything to do with finding dates on the calendar, they have to do with balancing all of the financial interests involved. FCS doesn't have to worry about those, they're just spending a very small amount of the NCAA's March Madness cash stash to add more teams to their playoff.

(01-13-2015 04:27 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  This is funny because the Championship Sub Division has had a 16 team playoff and has had little issues with that. All this chatter is just BS while they figure out a way to squeeze a few more dollars out of the Fans and general public.

FCS does not play at neutral sites (except the final) and does not play conference championship games.

(01-13-2015 04:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 04:27 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  This is funny because the Championship Sub Division has had a 16 team playoff and has had little issues with that. All this chatter is just BS while they figure out a way to squeeze a few more dollars out of the Fans and general public.

The FCS playoff field now has 24 teams. The issues with a larger FBS playoff don't have anything to do with finding dates on the calendar, they have to do with balancing all of the financial interests involved. FCS doesn't have to worry about those, they're just spending a very small amount of the NCAA's March Madness cash stash to add more teams to their playoff.

My point is relevant in the fact that they to have to travel to the added games and lose time in classes and so on. This is the purported major issue. Time lost in class by athletes and possible additional injuries which the other Division also faces.

The cost you mention is smoke and mirrors since you can arrange the playoffs to be local centric with a larger field thus less travel time and expense. It's all musical chairs with numbers.

(01-13-2015 04:10 PM)orangefan Wrote:  I saw TCU Coach Gary Patterson on TV some time over the past week or so, and he had an interesting idea. He thought to accommodate an 8 school playoff, conference championship games would have to be eliminated. The more I've thought about it, the more the idea has grown on me.

Whether it's a good idea or not, it seems quite disingenuous for anyone from the Big 12 to state anything to the effect of eliminating conference championship games when they're the only ones that don't actually lose anything.

The Big Ten is getting $24 million per year in TV money alone for its conference championship game under, by today's standards, an *old* contract. They're not giving that up (and neither will the SEC, Pac-12 or ACC), just as none of those conferences are giving up their money-making basketball tournaments that are even more superfluous.

There are few certainties in life, but one thing that I've seen in sports is that things that make money are not EVER eliminated. An 8-team playoff can easily co-exist with the conference championship games (and that's the only way a playoff could ever occur). The Big 12 can't continue to attempt to have its cake and eat it, too, on this issue.

(01-13-2015 04:27 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  This is funny because the Championship Sub Division has had a 16 team playoff and has had little issues with that. All this chatter is just BS while they figure out a way to squeeze a few more dollars out of the Fans and general public.

The difference is that in the FBS there is actual money involved, and large numbers of viewers interested in watching.

(01-13-2015 04:38 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 04:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 04:27 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  This is funny because the Championship Sub Division has had a 16 team playoff and has had little issues with that. All this chatter is just BS while they figure out a way to squeeze a few more dollars out of the Fans and general public.

The FCS playoff field now has 24 teams. The issues with a larger FBS playoff don't have anything to do with finding dates on the calendar, they have to do with balancing all of the financial interests involved. FCS doesn't have to worry about those, they're just spending a very small amount of the NCAA's March Madness cash stash to add more teams to their playoff.

My point is relevant in the fact that they to have to travel to the added games and lose time in classes and so on. This is the purported major issue. Time lost in class by athletes and possible additional injuries which the other Division also faces.

The cost you mention is smoke and mirrors since you can arrange the playoffs to be local centric with a larger field thus less travel time and expense. It's all musical chairs with numbers.

Lets examine a little bit.
1st round of FCS 11/29. Thanksgiving weekend. No issue. 24 teams
2nd round of FCS 12/6. Week before finals. 16 teams
3rd round of FCS 12/12-13. Finals completed. 8 teams.
4th round of FCS 12/19-20. No school. 4 teams left.
Final. Could be on Jan. 1 during Christmas break but even then only 2 teams affected. But then a few schools didn't start till 1/12.

Teams don't fly out the week before to prepared. They stay at their school and practice then fly out the day or 2 before the games. Not much class is missed. FCS is the more truer sense of the student-athlete. FBS bowl teams stay at home and practice and go to school all the while waiting for the date to appear in the bowl.

those dates could slide down a week or two depending how the calendar lines up. Even then it shows that if a FBS playoff with 8 or 16 teams can fit right into Christmas vacation without class time affected.

(01-13-2015 04:44 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 04:10 PM)orangefan Wrote:  I saw TCU Coach Gary Patterson on TV some time over the past week or so, and he had an interesting idea. He thought to accommodate an 8 school playoff, conference championship games would have to be eliminated. The more I've thought about it, the more the idea has grown on me.

Whether it's a good idea or not, it seems quite disingenuous for anyone from the Big 12 to state anything to the effect of eliminating conference championship games when they're the only ones that don't actually lose anything.

The Big Ten is getting $24 million per year in TV money alone for its conference championship game under, by today's standards, an *old* contract. They're not giving that up (and neither will the SEC, Pac-12 or ACC), just as none of those conferences are giving up their money-making basketball tournaments that are even more superfluous.

There are few certainties in life, but one thing that I've seen in sports is that things that make money are not EVER eliminated. An 8-team playoff can easily co-exist with the conference championship games (and that's the only way a playoff could ever occur). The Big 12 can't continue to attempt to have its cake and eat it, too, on this issue.

I would assume in order for this to work, the quarterfinal games would have to be worth more than the CCG.

each P5 conference would have to promised an extra $24M up front to give up the CCG. I think this could be done no problem.

(01-13-2015 04:38 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 04:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 04:27 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  This is funny because the Championship Sub Division has had a 16 team playoff and has had little issues with that. All this chatter is just BS while they figure out a way to squeeze a few more dollars out of the Fans and general public.

The FCS playoff field now has 24 teams. The issues with a larger FBS playoff don't have anything to do with finding dates on the calendar, they have to do with balancing all of the financial interests involved. FCS doesn't have to worry about those, they're just spending a very small amount of the NCAA's March Madness cash stash to add more teams to their playoff.

My point is relevant in the fact that they to have to travel to the added games and lose time in classes and so on. This is the purported major issue. Time lost in class by athletes and possible additional injuries which the other Division also faces.

The cost you mention is smoke and mirrors since you can arrange the playoffs to be local centric with a larger field thus less travel time and expense. It's all musical chairs with numbers.

The financial issues are not smoke and mirrors -- they are the most important thing, because they determine who is going to fight like hell against any expanded playoff.

The bowl guys will fight against it. The value of their racket goes way down when the playoff expands. Maybe goes down so far that the bowls become no more relevant than the NIT or CBI.

Anything that involves pulling the plug on conference title games will be fought by the ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC, who make big money from those games. Including TV rights, ticket sales, sponsorships, maybe the stadium paying for the privilege of hosting the game (e.g. the Pac-12), I'd guess each conference title game nets at least $50 million for the conference; in comparison, the Pac-12 and Big 12 each take home less than that, $40 million, from the Rose Bowl. If you give each of those conferences enough money on top of what the playoff already pays them, to compensate for losing their conference title game, it might work, but that means the playoff has to generate an additional $200 million or more just to pay that money out.

And there are other entities who would stand to lose or make more money depending on how you set up an expanded playoff.

(01-13-2015 05:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 04:38 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 04:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 04:27 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  This is funny because the Championship Sub Division has had a 16 team playoff and has had little issues with that. All this chatter is just BS while they figure out a way to squeeze a few more dollars out of the Fans and general public.

The FCS playoff field now has 24 teams. The issues with a larger FBS playoff don't have anything to do with finding dates on the calendar, they have to do with balancing all of the financial interests involved. FCS doesn't have to worry about those, they're just spending a very small amount of the NCAA's March Madness cash stash to add more teams to their playoff.

My point is relevant in the fact that they to have to travel to the added games and lose time in classes and so on. This is the purported major issue. Time lost in class by athletes and possible additional injuries which the other Division also faces.

The cost you mention is smoke and mirrors since you can arrange the playoffs to be local centric with a larger field thus less travel time and expense. It's all musical chairs with numbers.

The financial issues are not smoke and mirrors -- they are the most important thing, because they determine who is going to fight like hell against any expanded playoff.

The bowl guys will fight against it. The value of their racket goes way down when the playoff expands. Maybe goes down so far that the bowls become no more relevant than the NIT or CBI.

Anything that involves pulling the plug on conference title games will be fought by the ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC, who make big money from those games. Including TV rights, ticket sales, sponsorships, maybe the stadium paying for the privilege of hosting the game (e.g. the Pac-12), I'd guess each conference title game nets at least $50 million for the conference; in comparison, the Pac-12 and Big 12 each take home less than that, $40 million, from the Rose Bowl. If you give each of those conferences enough money on top of what the playoff already pays them, to compensate for losing their conference title game, it might work, but that means the playoff has to generate an additional $200 million or more just to pay that money out.

And there are other entities who would stand to lose or make more money depending on how you set up an expanded playoff.

Quite right Wedge.
Also, I think if anything the number of regular games get reduced to 11 from 12 to hold a CCG and still have the play off expanded.

(01-13-2015 05:02 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 04:44 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 04:10 PM)orangefan Wrote:  I saw TCU Coach Gary Patterson on TV some time over the past week or so, and he had an interesting idea. He thought to accommodate an 8 school playoff, conference championship games would have to be eliminated. The more I've thought about it, the more the idea has grown on me.

Whether it's a good idea or not, it seems quite disingenuous for anyone from the Big 12 to state anything to the effect of eliminating conference championship games when they're the only ones that don't actually lose anything.

The Big Ten is getting $24 million per year in TV money alone for its conference championship game under, by today's standards, an *old* contract. They're not giving that up (and neither will the SEC, Pac-12 or ACC), just as none of those conferences are giving up their money-making basketball tournaments that are even more superfluous.

There are few certainties in life, but one thing that I've seen in sports is that things that make money are not EVER eliminated. An 8-team playoff can easily co-exist with the conference championship games (and that's the only way a playoff could ever occur). The Big 12 can't continue to attempt to have its cake and eat it, too, on this issue.

I would assume in order for this to work, the quarterfinal games would have to be worth more than the CCG.

each P5 conference would have to promised an extra $24M up front to give up the CCG. I think this could be done no problem.

Control, control, control, control. Conferences control 100% of the conference championship games. Giving them extra money upfront isn't the same. Is there a certain astronomical price to spur them to give them up, like maybe $100 million per year? Then you might start talking.

However, the main fallacy is thinking that this is an either/or proposition in the way that Gary Patterson has argued. The conferences can still make that extra $100 million per year AND make their money from the conference championship games. The 8-team playoff can still continue to incorporate conference championship games and the bowls. There is absolutely no need to destroy any of the system that exists today - you can keep the conference championship games, play the quarterfinals using the top New Year's bowls, play semifinals 7 to 10 days after that, and then play the national title game 7 to 10 days after that.

The powers that be can pay lip service all that they want to how long the season extends, but when push comes to shove, are they going to (a) eliminate conference championship games and kill the bowl system so that 8 teams can play playoffs during finals and one of the weakest periods for travel bookings (as people don't like taking time off in those two weeks prior to Christmas - just look at the price of a hotel room in a top tourist destination like Las Vegas or Orlando during that time compared to the week between Christmas and New Year's) or (b) keep all of the current system (with all the money and control that comes with it) and then just 2 teams play one extra week beyond the schedule today? Call me crazy, but I'd put money on the latter.

(01-13-2015 05:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 04:38 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 04:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 04:27 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  This is funny because the Championship Sub Division has had a 16 team playoff and has had little issues with that. All this chatter is just BS while they figure out a way to squeeze a few more dollars out of the Fans and general public.

The FCS playoff field now has 24 teams. The issues with a larger FBS playoff don't have anything to do with finding dates on the calendar, they have to do with balancing all of the financial interests involved. FCS doesn't have to worry about those, they're just spending a very small amount of the NCAA's March Madness cash stash to add more teams to their playoff.

My point is relevant in the fact that they to have to travel to the added games and lose time in classes and so on. This is the purported major issue. Time lost in class by athletes and possible additional injuries which the other Division also faces.

The cost you mention is smoke and mirrors since you can arrange the playoffs to be local centric with a larger field thus less travel time and expense. It's all musical chairs with numbers.

The financial issues are not smoke and mirrors -- they are the most important thing, because they determine who is going to fight like hell against any expanded playoff.

The bowl guys will fight against it. The value of their racket goes way down when the playoff expands. Maybe goes down so far that the bowls become no more relevant than the NIT or CBI.

Anything that involves pulling the plug on conference title games will be fought by the ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC, who make big money from those games. Including TV rights, ticket sales, sponsorships, maybe the stadium paying for the privilege of hosting the game (e.g. the Pac-12), I'd guess each conference title game nets at least $50 million for the conference; in comparison, the Pac-12 and Big 12 each take home less than that, $40 million, from the Rose Bowl. If you give each of those conferences enough money on top of what the playoff already pays them, to compensate for losing their conference title game, it might work, but that means the playoff has to generate an additional $200 million or more just to pay that money out.

And there are other entities who would stand to lose or make more money depending on how you set up an expanded playoff.

I will simply state that you are wrong. Time will prove that I am right. There is money to be made by expanding the Playoffs. That's the same reason why the NFL did so twice. As for the Conference Championship games, that will stand and will only be given up as a last resort. It is money that the conferences keep for themselves and do not have to share with the rest of the League. Greed is good!

I guess this is the thread for playoff thoughts right now and I have a few on the subject.

The big takeaway this year of Ohio State winning the national championship after starting slowing and dropping a game to 6-6 Virginia Tech early in the season is that years ago on an 11 game schedule every game counted and now like it is in basketball a team can develop over the course of the season en route to a championship.

The argument Phil Steele has made against the expansion from a 4 team playoff to an 8 team playoff or beyond is that.......

1) Rarely does a team outside of the Top 4 have a legitimate claim that its the best team in the country on merit.

2) Once you get beyond a semifinal and final game it becomes a war of attrition. No longer would you see the best team but the survivor of dogfights.

What I'm seeing is its who gets hot down the stretch, championship game and playoff games that takes home the trophy like in basketball. The legitimate claim argument was always based on year to date merit over whether a school was peaking so that has been debunked with OSU rolling through Michigan State and Wisconsin in the title game to grab a playoff spot, then to dominate in the playoff.

The attrition factor where injuries come into play is no more random than an injury in the NCAA tournament. Championship level teams in football are usually so because of their depth and quality of conditioning. If you were talking an 8 team playoff within the MAC attrition would be more of a factor but not at CFP level.

Due to this I see no reason not to move to an 8 team playoff. A case in point is what if Florida Sate finished 11-2 ranked #7 and was the hottest team in the country down the stretch, yet they wouldn't have a shot at the playoff.

However, anything more than watching 8 schools duke it out is probably overkill and difficult to coexist with the current bowl system. 16 schools from the power conferences is more than 1/4 of their membership. You are going to get some schools that are sputtering and will get blown out in the first round.

Eight schools would provide for a little more access, a chance for #5 through #8 to show why they are ranked so high and a chance to make more money with both semifinals and finals at a neutral site.

I think it would have been fairly easy this year to see TCU and/or Baylor win a game in an 8 team playoff, perhaps contend for a title game. Michigan State maybe not so much but we are talking #8 seed here vs. #1 seed in a first round. Very easily a late blooming #5, #6, #7 could win an 8 team playoff, IMO.

Kittonhead - I agree with almost everything that you said except for the Michigan State comment. Considering that they beat Baylor in Dallas and their only losses were to the national title game participants, it's more than reasonable to believe that they could win one or more playoff games as the #8 seed. Remember that even a #1 vs. #8 matchup in football is the equivalent of a #1-seed vs. #2-seed NCAA Tournament Regional Final, and those types of games are often coin tosses as to who will win. The teams are razor-thin close in quality - anyone in the top 10 is a more than dangerous team.

The bigger question is whether that #8 seed would go to an at-large team like Michigan State or if there would be a spot reserved for the top G5 conference champ (who would have been Boise State this year).

(01-14-2015 01:33 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I guess this is the thread for playoff thoughts right now and I have a few on the subject.

The big takeaway this year of Ohio State winning the national championship after starting slowing and dropping a game to 6-6 Virginia Tech early in the season is that years ago on an 11 game schedule every game counted and now like it is in basketball a team can develop over the course of the season en route to a championship.

The argument Phil Steele has made against the expansion from a 4 team playoff to an 8 team playoff or beyond is that.......

1) Rarely does a team outside of the Top 4 have a legitimate claim that its the best team in the country on merit.

2) Once you get beyond a semifinal and final game it becomes a war of attrition. No longer would you see the best team but the survivor of dogfights.

What I'm seeing is its who gets hot down the stretch, championship game and playoff games that takes home the trophy like in basketball. The legitimate claim argument was always based on year to date merit over whether a school was peaking so that has been debunked with OSU rolling through Michigan State and Wisconsin in the title game to grab a playoff spot, then to dominate in the playoff.

The attrition factor where injuries come into play is no more random than an injury in the NCAA tournament. Championship level teams in football are usually so because of their depth and quality of conditioning. If you were talking an 8 team playoff within the MAC attrition would be more of a factor but not at CFP level.

Due to this I see no reason not to move to an 8 team playoff. A case in point is what if Florida Sate finished 11-2 ranked #7 and was the hottest team in the country down the stretch, yet they wouldn't have a shot at the playoff.

However, anything more than watching 8 schools duke it out is probably overkill and difficult to coexist with the current bowl system. 16 schools from the power conferences is more than 1/4 of their membership. You are going to get some schools that are sputtering and will get blown out in the first round.

Eight schools would provide for a little more access, a chance for #5 through #8 to show why they are ranked so high and a chance to make more money with both semifinals and finals at a neutral site.

I think it would have been fairly easy this year to see TCU and/or Baylor win a game in an 8 team playoff, perhaps contend for a title game. Michigan State maybe not so much but we are talking #8 seed here vs. #1 seed in a first round. Very easily a late blooming #5, #6, #7 could win an 8 team playoff, IMO.

To counterpoint a little here,
1. Sometimes the best team need a few games to gel together as a team.
2. Your analogy of survivor of dogfights is off based because the best would survive those ordeals. The best must be the best all the time to survive the playoffs, if you aren't then you're out. Just look at the FCS format.
3. Basketball is a bit different from football especially with the number of games played during the regular season.

The end goal should be to have a fair and equitable process to trim 129 teams down to 1 and have it all decided on the field. We should be looking for ways to eliminate off the field decisions, not add more.

The only way to make a system without a conference championship game be completely is fair is to limit conference sizes so every team in the conference plays each other. For example, a 10 team conference would have a 9 game conference schedule. But if you're going to have conferences with 12-14 members you need to split it one level further and have divisions where everyone plays everyone, and then the 2 division champs play for the conference champ.

Why is creating a system where teams are eliminated solely based on head-to-head eliminations so feared by the FBS? What is wrong with giving every team in the league a direct path to a championship game? Why must we continue to support this blatantly dishonest and inequitable system of favoritism and cronyism?

(01-14-2015 10:22 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  The end goal should be to have a fair and equitable process to trim 129 teams down to 1 and have it all decided on the field. We should be looking for ways to eliminate off the field decisions, not add more.

The only way to make a system without a conference championship game be completely is fair is to limit conference sizes so every team in the conference plays each other. For example, a 10 team conference would have a 9 game conference schedule. But if you're going to have conferences with 12-14 members you need to split it one level further and have divisions where everyone plays everyone, and then the 2 division champs play for the conference champ.

Why is creating a system where teams are eliminated solely based on head-to-head eliminations so feared by the FBS? What is wrong with giving every team in the league a direct path to a championship game? Why must we continue to support this blatantly dishonest and inequitable system of favoritism and cronyism?

Well, that's easy. Have FBS under the NCAA. But that isn't going to happen.