(02-13-2015 01:57 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 01:19 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  The logical alternative is to go to 8 teams. The 5 P5 champs, the top G5 team, and two wildcards. The final gets played the Saturday before the Super Bowl.

That's solution would definitely work for me. I think it makes a lot more sense than a lot of these other so-called solutions.

I was all about going to 8 before this season, but I don't think it will happen now....

I think the system they have in place now (not just the 4 team playoff, but the 6 total New Years games) has been a huge success....they're going to let this ride

(02-13-2015 02:22 PM)Otacon Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 11:55 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  I quit reading after he wanted to get the other leagues to drop their championship games....

not only is this completely unrealistic, but sometimes those championship games turn into de facto playoff games

bottomline is the Big XII needs to man up and get a championship game

If conferences would have only expanded to 12 teams, then maybe we wouldn't have this problem....

hey, if cars ran on magic beans, we wouldn't need oil

(02-13-2015 01:36 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 12:31 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  If there had never been CCGs I'd have loved it. I think the traditional set-up is far and away the best and am one of the few envious of the Big 12 set-up. That said, the ship has sailed on CCGs. You can arguably do 12 team conferences with no CCGs, but 14 teams has just gotten too big not to have them unless you are talking 10 conference games. Otherwise the scheduling differences are just too massive and conference titles still need to be the focus of a season not the national championship.

Side note: Coaches speak still means almost nothing as far as any kind of structural changes. They speak all the time and it's largely just their own opinions. ADs and presidents talking is more meaningful.

Side note 2: Meyer also recently said the national championship was great, but 15 games is enough and no more should be added.

I agree.

The other thing is that those four ccg (ACC, Big 10, SEC and Pac) are valuable content for ESPN (read profit). When you dance with the TV dollars, they don't care about empty seats in stadiums.

I will add that I like his idea. I just can't see ESPN giving up that much content as well as those conferences with a ccg backtracking on why they expanded to 14 in the first place (besides having a vision for their own TV networks).

except for the fact that-
Big Ten title game- Fox
SEC title game- CBS
Pac 12 title game- splits between ESPN and Fox

(02-13-2015 02:02 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I love the fact that the Big12 plays a round robin schedule.

So do I. Imagine that.

(02-13-2015 02:57 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 01:36 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 12:31 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  If there had never been CCGs I'd have loved it. I think the traditional set-up is far and away the best and am one of the few envious of the Big 12 set-up. That said, the ship has sailed on CCGs. You can arguably do 12 team conferences with no CCGs, but 14 teams has just gotten too big not to have them unless you are talking 10 conference games. Otherwise the scheduling differences are just too massive and conference titles still need to be the focus of a season not the national championship.

Side note: Coaches speak still means almost nothing as far as any kind of structural changes. They speak all the time and it's largely just their own opinions. ADs and presidents talking is more meaningful.

Side note 2: Meyer also recently said the national championship was great, but 15 games is enough and no more should be added.

I agree.

The other thing is that those four ccg (ACC, Big 10, SEC and Pac) are valuable content for ESPN (read profit). When you dance with the TV dollars, they don't care about empty seats in stadiums.

I will add that I like his idea. I just can't see ESPN giving up that much content as well as those conferences with a ccg backtracking on why they expanded to 14 in the first place (besides having a vision for their own TV networks).

except for the fact that-
Big Ten title game- Fox
SEC title game- CBS
Pac 12 title game- splits between ESPN and Fox

Good catch, if true, I dunno.

But it doesn't matter who puts them on. TV won't give up the profits and neither will the colleges. The money is too good for only two teams working that day.

(02-13-2015 02:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 01:41 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 01:36 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 12:31 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  If there had never been CCGs I'd have loved it. I think the traditional set-up is far and away the best and am one of the few envious of the Big 12 set-up. That said, the ship has sailed on CCGs. You can arguably do 12 team conferences with no CCGs, but 14 teams has just gotten too big not to have them unless you are talking 10 conference games. Otherwise the scheduling differences are just too massive and conference titles still need to be the focus of a season not the national championship.

Side note: Coaches speak still means almost nothing as far as any kind of structural changes. They speak all the time and it's largely just their own opinions. ADs and presidents talking is more meaningful.

Side note 2: Meyer also recently said the national championship was great, but 15 games is enough and no more should be added.

I agree.

The other thing is that those four ccg (ACC, Big 10, SEC and Pac) are valuable content for ESPN (read profit). When you dance with the TV dollars, they don't care about empty seats in stadiums.

I will add that I like his idea. I just can't see ESPN giving up that much content as well as those conferences with a ccg backtracking on why they expanded to 14 in the first place (besides having a vision for their own TV networks).

They could cut the regular season games from 12 to 11 if they do expand the playoff.

I don't see that ever happening. That would take 122 games from the schedule. Pretty much all games against the FCS would be eliminated. That means that those FBS teams that would have hosted those games lose a home game from their schedule. It also means a lot of schools won't qualify for a bowl, since they now would need 6 FBS wins instead of 5. That's just too many negatives for it to work.

I see that as a good thing.

(02-13-2015 03:28 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 02:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 01:41 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 01:36 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 12:31 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  If there had never been CCGs I'd have loved it. I think the traditional set-up is far and away the best and am one of the few envious of the Big 12 set-up. That said, the ship has sailed on CCGs. You can arguably do 12 team conferences with no CCGs, but 14 teams has just gotten too big not to have them unless you are talking 10 conference games. Otherwise the scheduling differences are just too massive and conference titles still need to be the focus of a season not the national championship.

Side note: Coaches speak still means almost nothing as far as any kind of structural changes. They speak all the time and it's largely just their own opinions. ADs and presidents talking is more meaningful.

Side note 2: Meyer also recently said the national championship was great, but 15 games is enough and no more should be added.

I agree.

The other thing is that those four ccg (ACC, Big 10, SEC and Pac) are valuable content for ESPN (read profit). When you dance with the TV dollars, they don't care about empty seats in stadiums.

I will add that I like his idea. I just can't see ESPN giving up that much content as well as those conferences with a ccg backtracking on why they expanded to 14 in the first place (besides having a vision for their own TV networks).

They could cut the regular season games from 12 to 11 if they do expand the playoff.

I don't see that ever happening. That would take 122 games from the schedule. Pretty much all games against the FCS would be eliminated. That means that those FBS teams that would have hosted those games lose a home game from their schedule. It also means a lot of schools won't qualify for a bowl, since they now would need 6 FBS wins instead of 5. That's just too many negatives for it to work.

I see that as a good thing.

I think you are kidding yourself if you think if they go from 12-11 that the FCS games would be the games removed. I don't see that at all- maybe at the top yes, but not for all the schools.

(02-13-2015 03:31 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 03:28 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 02:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 01:41 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 01:36 PM)Topkat Wrote:  I agree.

The other thing is that those four ccg (ACC, Big 10, SEC and Pac) are valuable content for ESPN (read profit). When you dance with the TV dollars, they don't care about empty seats in stadiums.

I will add that I like his idea. I just can't see ESPN giving up that much content as well as those conferences with a ccg backtracking on why they expanded to 14 in the first place (besides having a vision for their own TV networks).

They could cut the regular season games from 12 to 11 if they do expand the playoff.

I don't see that ever happening. That would take 122 games from the schedule. Pretty much all games against the FCS would be eliminated. That means that those FBS teams that would have hosted those games lose a home game from their schedule. It also means a lot of schools won't qualify for a bowl, since they now would need 6 FBS wins instead of 5. That's just too many negatives for it to work.

I see that as a good thing.

I think you are kidding yourself if you think if they go from 12-11 that the FCS games would be the games removed. I don't see that at all- maybe at the top yes, but not for all the schools.

I don't think the FCS games would be removed, but it may open more G5 teams to replace some of those FCS games. But the less schools qualifying for a bowl I view as a good thing.

(02-13-2015 03:31 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 03:28 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 02:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 01:41 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 01:36 PM)Topkat Wrote:  I agree.

The other thing is that those four ccg (ACC, Big 10, SEC and Pac) are valuable content for ESPN (read profit). When you dance with the TV dollars, they don't care about empty seats in stadiums.

I will add that I like his idea. I just can't see ESPN giving up that much content as well as those conferences with a ccg backtracking on why they expanded to 14 in the first place (besides having a vision for their own TV networks).

They could cut the regular season games from 12 to 11 if they do expand the playoff.

I don't see that ever happening. That would take 122 games from the schedule. Pretty much all games against the FCS would be eliminated. That means that those FBS teams that would have hosted those games lose a home game from their schedule. It also means a lot of schools won't qualify for a bowl, since they now would need 6 FBS wins instead of 5. That's just too many negatives for it to work.

I see that as a good thing.

I think you are kidding yourself if you think if they go from 12-11 that the FCS games would be the games removed. I don't see that at all- maybe at the top yes, but not for all the schools.

The games where a P5 school are involved is where the money is (especially when they play each other).

(02-13-2015 03:35 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 03:31 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 03:28 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 02:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 01:41 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  They could cut the regular season games from 12 to 11 if they do expand the playoff.

I don't see that ever happening. That would take 122 games from the schedule. Pretty much all games against the FCS would be eliminated. That means that those FBS teams that would have hosted those games lose a home game from their schedule. It also means a lot of schools won't qualify for a bowl, since they now would need 6 FBS wins instead of 5. That's just too many negatives for it to work.

I see that as a good thing.

I think you are kidding yourself if you think if they go from 12-11 that the FCS games would be the games removed. I don't see that at all- maybe at the top yes, but not for all the schools.

The games where a P5 school are involved is where the money is (especially when they play each other).

I don't disagree. I'm just saying instead of getting rid of a FCS game, most FBS schools would get rid of the lower tier FBS game.

(02-13-2015 03:37 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 03:35 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 03:31 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 03:28 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 02:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  I don't see that ever happening. That would take 122 games from the schedule. Pretty much all games against the FCS would be eliminated. That means that those FBS teams that would have hosted those games lose a home game from their schedule. It also means a lot of schools won't qualify for a bowl, since they now would need 6 FBS wins instead of 5. That's just too many negatives for it to work.

I see that as a good thing.

I think you are kidding yourself if you think if they go from 12-11 that the FCS games would be the games removed. I don't see that at all- maybe at the top yes, but not for all the schools.

The games where a P5 school are involved is where the money is (especially when they play each other).

I don't disagree. I'm just saying instead of getting rid of a FCS game, most FBS schools would get rid of the lower tier FBS game.

Maybe I'm missing something, but why would ESPN, Fox or whoever let them cut a regular season game from the schedule?

First, it would probably void the contract with TV. Second, TV would want to renegotiate if that was the case. In any given week, that's a ton of games televised. Given the staggered nature of when these contracts come up, I would think it would be a cluster.

(02-13-2015 03:48 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 03:37 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 03:35 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 03:31 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 03:28 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I see that as a good thing.

I think you are kidding yourself if you think if they go from 12-11 that the FCS games would be the games removed. I don't see that at all- maybe at the top yes, but not for all the schools.

The games where a P5 school are involved is where the money is (especially when they play each other).

I don't disagree. I'm just saying instead of getting rid of a FCS game, most FBS schools would get rid of the lower tier FBS game.

Maybe I'm missing something, but why would ESPN, Fox or whoever let them cut a regular season game from the schedule?

First, it would probably void the contract with TV. Second, TV would want to renegotiate if that was the case. In any given week, that's a ton of games televised. Given the staggered nature of when these contracts come up, I would think it would be a cluster.

Whether reducing the regular season is a good thing or not, or whether it would result in fewer FCS games or fewer G5 games, is not really the point here. It's that there are too many financial negatives for this to ever happen whether we would like them to or not. I believe having as many as 12 regular games is a bell we can't unring.

(02-13-2015 04:05 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 03:48 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 03:37 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 03:35 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 03:31 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think you are kidding yourself if you think if they go from 12-11 that the FCS games would be the games removed. I don't see that at all- maybe at the top yes, but not for all the schools.

The games where a P5 school are involved is where the money is (especially when they play each other).

I don't disagree. I'm just saying instead of getting rid of a FCS game, most FBS schools would get rid of the lower tier FBS game.

Maybe I'm missing something, but why would ESPN, Fox or whoever let them cut a regular season game from the schedule?

First, it would probably void the contract with TV. Second, TV would want to renegotiate if that was the case. In any given week, that's a ton of games televised. Given the staggered nature of when these contracts come up, I would think it would be a cluster.

Whether reducing the regular season is a good thing or not, or whether it would result in fewer FCS games or fewer G5 games, is not really the point here. It's that there are too many financial negatives for this to ever happen whether we would like them to or not. I believe having as many as 12 regular games is a bell we can't unring.

Then 13 games would be even better. Only 2 teams are affected by 16 games.

I'm sorry, who was the first person to tell you folks that the playoff talk would likely shift to talk about six teams?

It is funny that Patterson is attempting to try and use this upcoming talking point to shift some thinking in the direction of everyone else doing away with their championships since it is obvious, and has always been obvious, that the big 12 doesn't have viable choices for expansion.

I have also told you that there is no way in hell that the big 12 gets passage of the proposal that would help them in regards to number of teams, divisions and the championship games.

All of what I have told you people is confirmed right here with Patterson's words.

You're all welcome.

(02-13-2015 08:00 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I'm sorry, who was the first person to tell you folks that the playoff talk would likely shift to talk about six teams?

It is funny that Patterson is attempting to try and use this upcoming talking point to shift some thinking in the direction of everyone else doing away with their championships since it is obvious, and has always been obvious, that the big 12 doesn't have viable choices for expansion.

I have also told you that there is no way in hell that the big 12 gets passage of the proposal that would help them in regards to number of teams, divisions and the championship games.

All of what I have told you people is confirmed right here with Patterson's words.

You're all welcome.

Patterson is just floating his idea from a coach's perspective. His idea has nothing to what the Big 12 brass' vision is. I don't think Patterson himself believes for a second that any of the champ games are going away. This was just a "if I were king" type of comment.

(02-14-2015 12:00 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 08:00 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I'm sorry, who was the first person to tell you folks that the playoff talk would likely shift to talk about six teams?

It is funny that Patterson is attempting to try and use this upcoming talking point to shift some thinking in the direction of everyone else doing away with their championships since it is obvious, and has always been obvious, that the big 12 doesn't have viable choices for expansion.

I have also told you that there is no way in hell that the big 12 gets passage of the proposal that would help them in regards to number of teams, divisions and the championship games.

All of what I have told you people is confirmed right here with Patterson's words.

You're all welcome.

Patterson is just floating his idea from a coach's perspective. His idea has nothing to what the Big 12 brass' vision is. I don't think Patterson himself believes for a second that any of the champ games are going away. This was just a "if I were king" type of comment.

Keep telling yourself that.

Shocker, coach of the team that got snubbed wants to change the rules that would ultimately benefit his conference and all but guarantee access. Furthermore, what he's proposing is essentially the bcs system not a playoff. He leads off with it doesn't make sense to have 5 conferences and 4 slots. I thought the reason we went to a playoff to begin with was because we wanted the 4 best teams.

(02-14-2015 12:27 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Shocker, coach of the team that got snubbed wants to change the rules that would ultimately benefit his conference and all but guarantee access. Furthermore, what he's proposing is essentially the bcs system not a playoff. He leads off with it doesn't make sense to have 5 conferences and 4 slots. I thought the reason we went to a playoff to begin with was because we wanted the 4 best teams.

Bingo. That being said, 6 could be a true playoff, The 5 P5 champs, have to be a champ, and committee, Picks one of the G5 champs for #6. No wild card teams, Champions only.

How about this playoff format. Everyone plays CCG weekend as normal with the Big 12 champ taking on an at large be it ND/BYU or a top ranked team from a P5 thats not in a CCG or Big 12 runner up. Thats your first round. The committee ranks them 1-5 & the top G5 CC gets the 6th spot. Now everyone has played 13 games. #1 & 2 get a bye, this will please those who are against a 16 game as there is a chance that it wouldn't be necessary. #4 plays #5 & #3 plays the G5 selection on bowl opening weekend. On new years #1 plays the 4/5 winner & #2 plays the 3/G5 winner. The championship game played on same day now. This way there aren't any weeks added to the season & a 16th game may not be necessary.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

(02-14-2015 10:22 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  How about this playoff format. Everyone plays CCG weekend as normal with the Big 12 champ taking on an at large be it ND/BYU or a top ranked team from a P5 thats not in a CCG or Big 12 runner up. Thats your first round. The committee ranks them 1-5 & the top G5 CC gets the 6th spot. Now everyone has played 13 games. #1 & 2 get a bye, this will please those who are against a 15 game as there is a chance that it wouldn't be necessary. #4 plays #5 & #3 plays the G5 selection on bowl opening weekend. On new years #1 plays the 4/5 winner & #2 plays the 3/G5 winner. The championship game played on same day now. This way there aren't any weeks added to the season & a 15th game may not be necessary.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

The big 12 is free to schedule during the season however they like but it is highly unlikely that the other conferences give some kind of ooc match up the same credibility and value as their own conference championships.

A nice idea but not likely, in my opinion. The other conferences have the big 12 up against the ropes and the big 12 isn't proficient in the rope-a-dope.