(12-24-2015 01:22 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And secondly, I believe it was goofus's idea, that doesn't work either because every team plays the same number of conference games (roughly).

Each team plays the same number of conference games, and your net conference record will always be 0.500, but in general the fewer teams you have, the more losses the top half of your conference has. When you have more teams, and all of the top teams don't play each other, AND you don't have a round robin, generally the losses are spread to more teams. There is no guarantee, as you can have parity some years, but by and large, larger conferences allow top teams to separate themselves so long as the divisions are not unbalanced. Think about it, if you are the Big 12, assuming no undefeated team (if undefeated there is no need to discuss), then unless you have a tie for first place, the BEST case scenario is the second place team has 2 losses, just like this year. You cannot possibly have a situation like the Big Ten had, two 1 loss teams and an undefeated team in the same season. Your best case scenario is having what the ACC had, one each of a one loss and an undefeated team, which creates an unintended consequence, that you now have almost no quality wins, because it means two teams swept the conference. And that is the best case.

(12-24-2015 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  All three conferences had three teams with a realistic chance to make the playoff, at some point during the last half of the season.

That proves the numbers were even to start with.

No. You use the phrase you always use, and never use correctly, "you are wrong." Wanna know why? The Big XII teams eliminated each other prior to the last week, one by one, leaving no one with a chance to get back in. Aand had the ball bounced differently, could have actually eliminated each other. The other conferences eliminated one player, and a new one arose. They also had teams who were absolutely not in contention, Iowa, UNC, Ole Miss, and Florida, for example, become viable contenders later in the year after Michigan, Ohio St, LSU, and FSU were eliminated, precisely because of the number of teams in the conference and their schedule. Ole Miss and Florida later eliminated themselves after getting back in it, but having 14 teams specifically allowed them back in, in a way that is impossible in the backloaded Big 12 schedules.

See *that* is how you prove a point.

(12-24-2015 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:16 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 12:57 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Actually not only does it, but when you compare it to the point he stated, it helps validate his point even more.

You're wrong. My point is correct and it shows that the number of teams in the conference doesn't matter, since it's only really the number of realistic playoff teams that a conference has that matters. And all of the P5 have roughly the same number.

Thus proving the XII has some other inherent disadvantage, if they make the CFP fewer times than the other P5.

I think your blind spot is thinking that all the conferences have "roughly the same number". The bigger conferences have a better chance at having more top teams, not only because of more chances/ ping pong balls (my point), but because of a lack of a round robin resulting in the chance of more teams with 0 or 1 losses (adcorbett's point). Both are valid arguments against being a smaller conference.

To that point, by year's end, the Big Ten had 3 top ten teams, the ACC had 3 top ten teams. 14 teams. Both have The Big 12 and PAC 12 had one each, who have 10 and 12. The SEC only had one, but normally have more than that. It gives you more chances to have those teams in position, when the teams you expect to win don't.

All three conferences had three teams with a realistic chance to make the playoff, at some point during the last half of the season.

That proves the numbers were even to start with.

And thus, if the XII ends up making the CFP fewer times than the other P5, it proves there is some other inherent disadvantage with that conference that has nothing to do with the number of non-realistic playoff programs in the conference.

I think you have all made some good points, but, unless I missed it, the main issue here is the threat of missing out on what amounts to about an 80 million dollar payout for a conference when it misses the CFP. The PAC cannibalized itself this year and the result is that each of their schools will miss out on about a 6 million dollar distribution. When 4 conferences have 12 or more members and one consists of 10 there are naturally inequities. The Big 12 may be down the ladder on SOS for not having a CCG but on years like this one those 10 members will split about 7.5 million when they get a payday from the CFP.

IMO the issue here is that the other P conferences won't stand for that inequity long should they miss out on their 5 million (or in the PAC's case closer to 6).

What most university presidents want is a dependable revenue stream. The reason so many folks now talk about and push the idea of a P4 is because it guarantees each existing P4 conference an annual payout and access to the playoffs for their champion. At first you may not appreciate it but if we move to a P4 the conference Championship games will get more audience and therefore more revenue because they become de facto the first round of the playoffs.

So the pressure here is going to be for the Big 10, SEC, PAC and ACC to push for a P4 with champs only as the participants because it not only guarantees the CFP payout, but also enhances the value of their CCG's significantly.

I don't see the Big 12 adding more G5 schools. It cuts into their payout. Furthermore I don't see the other P4 tolerating it because it dilutes their profits and would ensure years when they might not be able to bank on that CFP money.

Therein lies the reason why a brokered placement of either the Big 12 or ACC's conference product is not far fetched. There is a lot of guaranteed revenue at stake if we muddle along as a P5. The really sad part is that if the Big 12 did opt to expand then outside of Cincinnati and possibly B.Y.U. some of the best candidates to make the jump would not be considered due to geography.

If the Big 12 does expand without doing so from an existing P conference I think the resulting rancor from the other 4 could be quite formidable. But as with all things we'll have to wait and see.

Since I've been arguing the advantages of the larger conferences but say I still don't want to expand, I feel compelled to give the reasons I think 10 is better, or at least "as good" when it comes to playoff. First off, from the individual schools perspective, instead of a one in 14 chance at winning the conference it is one in 10. Secondly, the playoff monies are split less. But the third reason is that the emphasis on champions paradoxically rewards smaller conferences, because the format makes it so tough for non-champions to make it. Not impossible, but tough. So while numbers wise the Big 12 is at a disadvantage comprising only 15% of the total pool of teams, it will comprise an equal 20% of the champions "pool". If instead of a bucket with one ball from each team it was a bucket with one ball from each conference, each conference would be in the playoff 80% of the time.

(12-24-2015 01:45 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  All three conferences had three teams with a realistic chance to make the playoff, at some point during the last half of the season.

That proves the numbers were even to start with.

No. You use the phrase you always use, and never use correctly, "you are wrong." Wanna know why? The Big XII teams eliminated each other prior to the last week, one by one, leaving no one with a chance to get back in. Aand had the ball bounced differently, could have actually eliminated each other. The other conferences eliminated one player, and a new one arose. They also had teams who were absolutely not in contention, Iowa, UNC, Ole Miss, and Florida, for example, become viable contenders later in the year after Michigan, Ohio St, LSU, and FSU were eliminated, precisely because of the number of teams in the conference and their schedule. Ole Miss and Florida later eliminated themselves after getting back in it, but having 14 teams specifically allowed them back in, in a way that is impossible in the backloaded Big 12 schedules.

See *that* is how you prove a point.

You haven't proven anything.

Iowa, Mich St and Ohio St ended up being the three B1G teams with a realistic chance at the playoff. Oklahoma, TCU and Baylor ended up being the three XII teams with a realistic chance at the playoff.

That the B1G has 11 non-realistic playoff programs and the XII only has seven, doesn't result in the XII having fewer realistic playoff teams.


Thus, each P5 has the same numbers to start with.


Therefore, if the XII gets into the playoff fewer times than the other P5, it proves there's something else inherently wrong with their model.


QED

(12-24-2015 01:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:16 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  You're wrong. My point is correct and it shows that the number of teams in the conference doesn't matter, since it's only really the number of realistic playoff teams that a conference has that matters. And all of the P5 have roughly the same number.

Thus proving the XII has some other inherent disadvantage, if they make the CFP fewer times than the other P5.

I think your blind spot is thinking that all the conferences have "roughly the same number". The bigger conferences have a better chance at having more top teams, not only because of more chances/ ping pong balls (my point), but because of a lack of a round robin resulting in the chance of more teams with 0 or 1 losses (adcorbett's point). Both are valid arguments against being a smaller conference.

To that point, by year's end, the Big Ten had 3 top ten teams, the ACC had 3 top ten teams. 14 teams. Both have The Big 12 and PAC 12 had one each, who have 10 and 12. The SEC only had one, but normally have more than that. It gives you more chances to have those teams in position, when the teams you expect to win don't.

All three conferences had three teams with a realistic chance to make the playoff, at some point during the last half of the season.

That proves the numbers were even to start with.

And thus, if the XII ends up making the CFP fewer times than the other P5, it proves there is some other inherent disadvantage with that conference that has nothing to do with the number of non-realistic playoff programs in the conference.

I think you have all made some good points, but, unless I missed it, the main issue here is the threat of missing out on what amounts to about an 80 million dollar payout for a conference when it misses the CFP. The PAC cannibalized itself this year and the result is that each of their schools will miss out on about a 6 million dollar distribution. When 4 conferences have 12 or more members and one consists of 10 there are naturally inequities. The Big 12 may be down the ladder on SOS for not having a CCG but on years like this one those 10 members will split about 7.5 million when they get a payday from the CFP.

IMO the issue here is that the other P conferences won't stand for that inequity long should they miss out on their 5 million (or in the PAC's case closer to 6).

What most university presidents want is a dependable revenue stream. The reason so many folks now talk about and push the idea of a P4 is because it guarantees each existing P4 conference an annual payout and access to the playoffs for their champion. At first you may not appreciate it but if we move to a P4 the conference Championship games will get more audience and therefore more revenue because they become de facto the first round of the playoffs.

So the pressure here is going to be for the Big 10, SEC, PAC and ACC to push for a P4 with champs only as the participants because it not only guarantees the CFP payout, but also enhances the value of their CCG's significantly.

I don't see the Big 12 adding more G5 schools. It cuts into their payout. Furthermore I don't see the other P4 tolerating it because it dilutes their profits and would ensure years when they might not be able to bank on that CFP money.

Therein lies the reason why a brokered placement of either the Big 12 or ACC's conference product is not far fetched. There is a lot of guaranteed revenue at stake if we muddle along as a P5. The really sad part is that if the Big 12 did opt to expand then outside of Cincinnati and possibly B.Y.U. some of the best candidates to make the jump would not be considered due to geography.

If the Big 12 does expand without doing so from an existing P conference I think the resulting rancor from the other 4 could be quite formidable. But as with all things we'll have to wait and see.

The P5 do have a guaranteed revenue stream from the CFP. Each conference gets something like 50 million, right off the top.

Making a CFP bowl only gets the conference another 6 million, I believe. Where are you getting an addition 80 million from??

(12-24-2015 02:03 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Since I've been arguing the advantages of the larger conferences but say I still don't want to expand, I feel compelled to give the reasons I think 10 is better, or at least "as good" when it comes to playoff. First off, from the individual schools perspective, instead of a one in 14 chance at winning the conference it is one in 10. Secondly, the playoff monies are split less. But the third reason is that the emphasis on champions paradoxically rewards smaller conferences, because the format makes it so tough for non-champions to make it. Not impossible, but tough. So while numbers wise the Big 12 is at a disadvantage comprising only 15% of the total pool of teams, it will comprise an equal 20% of the champions "pool". If instead of a bucket with one ball from each team it was a bucket with one ball from each conference, each conference would be in the playoff 80% of the time.

But of course, your percentage numbers are always assuming equal likelihoods, which is never the case.

Why don't they just go 16 with MEM, Cincy, UCONN, BYU, Co. St., Boise and do 4 pods of 4.
4 east, 4 Texas, 4 Midwest, 4 West schools. I'd love to see this as a fan and it ensures they keep the Power status.
The Power status really is the most important part of this problem

(12-24-2015 02:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:45 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  All three conferences had three teams with a realistic chance to make the playoff, at some point during the last half of the season.

That proves the numbers were even to start with.

No. You use the phrase you always use, and never use correctly, "you are wrong." Wanna know why? The Big XII teams eliminated each other prior to the last week, one by one, leaving no one with a chance to get back in. Aand had the ball bounced differently, could have actually eliminated each other. The other conferences eliminated one player, and a new one arose. They also had teams who were absolutely not in contention, Iowa, UNC, Ole Miss, and Florida, for example, become viable contenders later in the year after Michigan, Ohio St, LSU, and FSU were eliminated, precisely because of the number of teams in the conference and their schedule. Ole Miss and Florida later eliminated themselves after getting back in it, but having 14 teams specifically allowed them back in, in a way that is impossible in the backloaded Big 12 schedules.

See *that* is how you prove a point.

You haven't proven anything.

Iowa, Mich St and Ohio St ended up being the three B1G teams with a realistic chance at the playoff. Oklahoma, TCU and Baylor ended up being the three XII teams with a realistic chance at the playoff.

That the B1G has 11 non-realistic playoff programs and the XII only has seven, doesn't result in the XII having fewer realistic playoff teams.


Thus, each P5 has the same numbers to start with.


Therefore, if the XII gets into the playoff fewer times than the other P5, it proves there's something else inherently wrong with their model.


QED

Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. You said there were only three teams per conference, and more teams doesn't increase their chances. Yet we just showed that 5, not three, 5 teams in the second half had a chance, precisely because they had 4 more teams AND, don't play a round robin. The size of the conference gave them more chances. Same with the ACC. That spells P-R-O-O-F.

Here is another nugget. I looked this up the last year of the BCS. From 2003 to 2013, during the SECs run, they had 25 or 26 teams who were in contention for a BCS berth the last 4 weeks of the season. Of those 25 or 26 teams, a grand total of THREE played a team cross division who had a winning conference record: two of them were 5-3, and all three invovled LSU and Florida. . It is the primary reason why no team won the conference two years in a row until Alabama did: it is no coincidence that during that time. Tennessee, their cross division rival, was the worst they have been in decades. It is because when the SEC had 12 teams, your schedule alternated from easy to hard (cross division) every year, and made it hard to compete. Then when they expanded to 14, you will notice the SC started getting even MORE teams ranked high, despite most believing the SEC has dropped of a tad.

This is not an accident, and is a byproduct of the size of the conference, and number of conference games. this is PRECISELY what the OP was talking about. And it is unequivocally true.

(12-24-2015 02:21 PM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  Why don't they just go 16 with MEM, Cincy, UCONN, BYU, Co. St., Boise and do 4 pods of 4.
4 east, 4 Texas, 4 Midwest, 4 West schools. I'd love to see this as a fan and it ensures they keep the Power status.
The Power status really is the most important part of this problem

You could even have your own playoff system where you only play 7 league games with an open date for the last game...the 4 division winners face off, then a champ game

(12-24-2015 02:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 02:03 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Since I've been arguing the advantages of the larger conferences but say I still don't want to expand, I feel compelled to give the reasons I think 10 is better, or at least "as good" when it comes to playoff. First off, from the individual schools perspective, instead of a one in 14 chance at winning the conference it is one in 10. Secondly, the playoff monies are split less. But the third reason is that the emphasis on champions paradoxically rewards smaller conferences, because the format makes it so tough for non-champions to make it. Not impossible, but tough. So while numbers wise the Big 12 is at a disadvantage comprising only 15% of the total pool of teams, it will comprise an equal 20% of the champions "pool". If instead of a bucket with one ball from each team it was a bucket with one ball from each conference, each conference would be in the playoff 80% of the time.

But of course, your percentage numbers are always assuming equal likelihoods, which is never the case.

Of course not. All we are doing is looking at the advantages and disadvantages of bigger or smaller conferences with regards to the playoff in terms of raw numbers. There are of course lots of variables in play, but if we are strictly looking at the advantages and disadvantages of conference size, it is imperative to control for those variables and simply look at the size variable.

(12-23-2015 11:30 AM)TheBasketBallOpinion Wrote:  Paging Buffalo/UMass to AAC haha

I still think it's Cincy/Memphis that gets the Big 12 invite

the UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK at buffalo
is going to the BIG! We all talked about this months ago!

(12-24-2015 02:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:16 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I think your blind spot is thinking that all the conferences have "roughly the same number". The bigger conferences have a better chance at having more top teams, not only because of more chances/ ping pong balls (my point), but because of a lack of a round robin resulting in the chance of more teams with 0 or 1 losses (adcorbett's point). Both are valid arguments against being a smaller conference.

To that point, by year's end, the Big Ten had 3 top ten teams, the ACC had 3 top ten teams. 14 teams. Both have The Big 12 and PAC 12 had one each, who have 10 and 12. The SEC only had one, but normally have more than that. It gives you more chances to have those teams in position, when the teams you expect to win don't.

All three conferences had three teams with a realistic chance to make the playoff, at some point during the last half of the season.

That proves the numbers were even to start with.

And thus, if the XII ends up making the CFP fewer times than the other P5, it proves there is some other inherent disadvantage with that conference that has nothing to do with the number of non-realistic playoff programs in the conference.

I think you have all made some good points, but, unless I missed it, the main issue here is the threat of missing out on what amounts to about an 80 million dollar payout for a conference when it misses the CFP. The PAC cannibalized itself this year and the result is that each of their schools will miss out on about a 6 million dollar distribution. When 4 conferences have 12 or more members and one consists of 10 there are naturally inequities. The Big 12 may be down the ladder on SOS for not having a CCG but on years like this one those 10 members will split about 7.5 million when they get a payday from the CFP.

IMO the issue here is that the other P conferences won't stand for that inequity long should they miss out on their 5 million (or in the PAC's case closer to 6).

What most university presidents want is a dependable revenue stream. The reason so many folks now talk about and push the idea of a P4 is because it guarantees each existing P4 conference an annual payout and access to the playoffs for their champion. At first you may not appreciate it but if we move to a P4 the conference Championship games will get more audience and therefore more revenue because they become de facto the first round of the playoffs.

So the pressure here is going to be for the Big 10, SEC, PAC and ACC to push for a P4 with champs only as the participants because it not only guarantees the CFP payout, but also enhances the value of their CCG's significantly.

I don't see the Big 12 adding more G5 schools. It cuts into their payout. Furthermore I don't see the other P4 tolerating it because it dilutes their profits and would ensure years when they might not be able to bank on that CFP money.

Therein lies the reason why a brokered placement of either the Big 12 or ACC's conference product is not far fetched. There is a lot of guaranteed revenue at stake if we muddle along as a P5. The really sad part is that if the Big 12 did opt to expand then outside of Cincinnati and possibly B.Y.U. some of the best candidates to make the jump would not be considered due to geography.

If the Big 12 does expand without doing so from an existing P conference I think the resulting rancor from the other 4 could be quite formidable. But as with all things we'll have to wait and see.

The P5 do have a guaranteed revenue stream from the CFP. Each conference gets something like 50 million, right off the top.

Making a CFP bowl only gets the conference another 6 million, I believe. Where are you getting an addition 80 million from??

An increased share of 12 million for the elimination of 1 conference, the additional bowl tie ins, and the extra commercial revenue from conference sponsored merchandise, etc.

(12-24-2015 10:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 08:57 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Just sayin'... Berry Trammel from the "Daily Oklahoman" specifically named UConn and Cincinnati as the two most likely expansion candidates on the "West Virginia Statewide Sportsline" radio show this week and that received a warm reception. And Trammel is well connected to the OU administration and has been pretty spot-on throughout this whole process...

Trammel is a bit of a troll.

Nobody is talking about UConn.

Sure. Whatever.

(12-24-2015 02:22 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 02:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:45 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  All three conferences had three teams with a realistic chance to make the playoff, at some point during the last half of the season.

That proves the numbers were even to start with.

No. You use the phrase you always use, and never use correctly, "you are wrong." Wanna know why? The Big XII teams eliminated each other prior to the last week, one by one, leaving no one with a chance to get back in. Aand had the ball bounced differently, could have actually eliminated each other. The other conferences eliminated one player, and a new one arose. They also had teams who were absolutely not in contention, Iowa, UNC, Ole Miss, and Florida, for example, become viable contenders later in the year after Michigan, Ohio St, LSU, and FSU were eliminated, precisely because of the number of teams in the conference and their schedule. Ole Miss and Florida later eliminated themselves after getting back in it, but having 14 teams specifically allowed them back in, in a way that is impossible in the backloaded Big 12 schedules.

See *that* is how you prove a point.

You haven't proven anything.

Iowa, Mich St and Ohio St ended up being the three B1G teams with a realistic chance at the playoff. Oklahoma, TCU and Baylor ended up being the three XII teams with a realistic chance at the playoff.

That the B1G has 11 non-realistic playoff programs and the XII only has seven, doesn't result in the XII having fewer realistic playoff teams.


Thus, each P5 has the same numbers to start with.


Therefore, if the XII gets into the playoff fewer times than the other P5, it proves there's something else inherently wrong with their model.


QED

Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. You said there were only three teams per conference, and more teams doesn't increase their chances. Yet we just showed that 5, not three, 5 teams in the second half had a chance, precisely because they had 4 more teams AND, don't play a round robin. The size of the conference gave them more chances. Same with the ACC. That spells P-R-O-O-F.

Here is another nugget. I looked this up the last year of the BCS. From 2003 to 2013, during the SECs run, they had 25 or 26 teams who were in contention for a BCS berth the last 4 weeks of the season. Of those 25 or 26 teams, a grand total of THREE played a team cross division who had a winning conference record: two of them were 5-3, and all three invovled LSU and Florida. . It is the primary reason why no team won the conference two years in a row until Alabama did: it is no coincidence that during that time. Tennessee, their cross division rival, was the worst they have been in decades. It is because when the SEC had 12 teams, your schedule alternated from easy to hard (cross division) every year, and made it hard to compete. Then when they expanded to 14, you will notice the SC started getting even MORE teams ranked high, despite most believing the SEC has dropped of a tad.

This is not an accident, and is a byproduct of the size of the conference, and number of conference games. this is PRECISELY what the OP was talking about. And it is unequivocally true.

This is your opinion, you have not proven it to be the truth of the matter.

It doesn't have to be three exactly, every year. The actual point is that each P5, averaged over time, has the same number of realistic playoff programs. Thus, adding non-realistic playoff programs to their membership doesn't increase their chances of getting into the playoff.

(12-24-2015 02:30 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 02:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 02:03 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Since I've been arguing the advantages of the larger conferences but say I still don't want to expand, I feel compelled to give the reasons I think 10 is better, or at least "as good" when it comes to playoff. First off, from the individual schools perspective, instead of a one in 14 chance at winning the conference it is one in 10. Secondly, the playoff monies are split less. But the third reason is that the emphasis on champions paradoxically rewards smaller conferences, because the format makes it so tough for non-champions to make it. Not impossible, but tough. So while numbers wise the Big 12 is at a disadvantage comprising only 15% of the total pool of teams, it will comprise an equal 20% of the champions "pool". If instead of a bucket with one ball from each team it was a bucket with one ball from each conference, each conference would be in the playoff 80% of the time.

But of course, your percentage numbers are always assuming equal likelihoods, which is never the case.

Of course not. All we are doing is looking at the advantages and disadvantages of bigger or smaller conferences with regards to the playoff in terms of raw numbers. There are of course lots of variables in play, but if we are strictly looking at the advantages and disadvantages of conference size, it is imperative to control for those variables and simply look at the size variable.

And that leads to a meaningless conclusion.

If what you claimed were true, then the B1G would expand and absorb the entire MAC and AAC, in order to give itself the largest advantage possible.

Just adding teams to add teams, does not give you an advantage.

(12-24-2015 02:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 02:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  To that point, by year's end, the Big Ten had 3 top ten teams, the ACC had 3 top ten teams. 14 teams. Both have The Big 12 and PAC 12 had one each, who have 10 and 12. The SEC only had one, but normally have more than that. It gives you more chances to have those teams in position, when the teams you expect to win don't.

All three conferences had three teams with a realistic chance to make the playoff, at some point during the last half of the season.

That proves the numbers were even to start with.

And thus, if the XII ends up making the CFP fewer times than the other P5, it proves there is some other inherent disadvantage with that conference that has nothing to do with the number of non-realistic playoff programs in the conference.

I think you have all made some good points, but, unless I missed it, the main issue here is the threat of missing out on what amounts to about an 80 million dollar payout for a conference when it misses the CFP. The PAC cannibalized itself this year and the result is that each of their schools will miss out on about a 6 million dollar distribution. When 4 conferences have 12 or more members and one consists of 10 there are naturally inequities. The Big 12 may be down the ladder on SOS for not having a CCG but on years like this one those 10 members will split about 7.5 million when they get a payday from the CFP.

IMO the issue here is that the other P conferences won't stand for that inequity long should they miss out on their 5 million (or in the PAC's case closer to 6).

What most university presidents want is a dependable revenue stream. The reason so many folks now talk about and push the idea of a P4 is because it guarantees each existing P4 conference an annual payout and access to the playoffs for their champion. At first you may not appreciate it but if we move to a P4 the conference Championship games will get more audience and therefore more revenue because they become de facto the first round of the playoffs.

So the pressure here is going to be for the Big 10, SEC, PAC and ACC to push for a P4 with champs only as the participants because it not only guarantees the CFP payout, but also enhances the value of their CCG's significantly.

I don't see the Big 12 adding more G5 schools. It cuts into their payout. Furthermore I don't see the other P4 tolerating it because it dilutes their profits and would ensure years when they might not be able to bank on that CFP money.

Therein lies the reason why a brokered placement of either the Big 12 or ACC's conference product is not far fetched. There is a lot of guaranteed revenue at stake if we muddle along as a P5. The really sad part is that if the Big 12 did opt to expand then outside of Cincinnati and possibly B.Y.U. some of the best candidates to make the jump would not be considered due to geography.

If the Big 12 does expand without doing so from an existing P conference I think the resulting rancor from the other 4 could be quite formidable. But as with all things we'll have to wait and see.

The P5 do have a guaranteed revenue stream from the CFP. Each conference gets something like 50 million, right off the top.

Making a CFP bowl only gets the conference another 6 million, I believe. Where are you getting an addition 80 million from??

An increased share of 12 million for the elimination of 1 conference, the additional bowl tie ins, and the extra commercial revenue from conference sponsored merchandise, etc.

Whoa, whoa ... who's talking about eliminating a P5 conference?

We were discussing whether the B1G/SEC/ACC have an advantage over the XII due to the size of the conferences.

(12-24-2015 03:22 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 02:22 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 02:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:45 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  All three conferences had three teams with a realistic chance to make the playoff, at some point during the last half of the season.

That proves the numbers were even to start with.

No. You use the phrase you always use, and never use correctly, "you are wrong." Wanna know why? The Big XII teams eliminated each other prior to the last week, one by one, leaving no one with a chance to get back in. Aand had the ball bounced differently, could have actually eliminated each other. The other conferences eliminated one player, and a new one arose. They also had teams who were absolutely not in contention, Iowa, UNC, Ole Miss, and Florida, for example, become viable contenders later in the year after Michigan, Ohio St, LSU, and FSU were eliminated, precisely because of the number of teams in the conference and their schedule. Ole Miss and Florida later eliminated themselves after getting back in it, but having 14 teams specifically allowed them back in, in a way that is impossible in the backloaded Big 12 schedules.

See *that* is how you prove a point.

You haven't proven anything.

Iowa, Mich St and Ohio St ended up being the three B1G teams with a realistic chance at the playoff. Oklahoma, TCU and Baylor ended up being the three XII teams with a realistic chance at the playoff.

That the B1G has 11 non-realistic playoff programs and the XII only has seven, doesn't result in the XII having fewer realistic playoff teams.


Thus, each P5 has the same numbers to start with.


Therefore, if the XII gets into the playoff fewer times than the other P5, it proves there's something else inherently wrong with their model.


QED

Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. You said there were only three teams per conference, and more teams doesn't increase their chances. Yet we just showed that 5, not three, 5 teams in the second half had a chance, precisely because they had 4 more teams AND, don't play a round robin. The size of the conference gave them more chances. Same with the ACC. That spells P-R-O-O-F.

Here is another nugget. I looked this up the last year of the BCS. From 2003 to 2013, during the SECs run, they had 25 or 26 teams who were in contention for a BCS berth the last 4 weeks of the season. Of those 25 or 26 teams, a grand total of THREE played a team cross division who had a winning conference record: two of them were 5-3, and all three invovled LSU and Florida. . It is the primary reason why no team won the conference two years in a row until Alabama did: it is no coincidence that during that time. Tennessee, their cross division rival, was the worst they have been in decades. It is because when the SEC had 12 teams, your schedule alternated from easy to hard (cross division) every year, and made it hard to compete. Then when they expanded to 14, you will notice the SC started getting even MORE teams ranked high, despite most believing the SEC has dropped of a tad.

This is not an accident, and is a byproduct of the size of the conference, and number of conference games. this is PRECISELY what the OP was talking about. And it is unequivocally true.

This is your opinion, you have not proven it to be the truth of the matter.

It doesn't have to be three exactly, every year. The actual point is that each P5, averaged over time, has the same number of realistic playoff programs. Thus, adding non-realistic playoff programs to their membership doesn't increase their chances of getting into the playoff.

If you look at the Big 10 during their 11 team days, routinely a "lesser" school managed to skip two out of Michigan, Ohio St. and Penn St. and competed for the title. Without looking it up, I think that applied to Northwestern both times they won and Purdue the time they won. There was another time there was a really weak Purdue team that would have won if they had merely beaten Penn St. as they didn't play Michigan or Ohio St.

Its one of the reasons that re-matches are relatively infrequent in ccgs. If teams play, one of them is guaranteed a loss.

(12-24-2015 02:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 02:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  To that point, by year's end, the Big Ten had 3 top ten teams, the ACC had 3 top ten teams. 14 teams. Both have The Big 12 and PAC 12 had one each, who have 10 and 12. The SEC only had one, but normally have more than that. It gives you more chances to have those teams in position, when the teams you expect to win don't.

All three conferences had three teams with a realistic chance to make the playoff, at some point during the last half of the season.

That proves the numbers were even to start with.

And thus, if the XII ends up making the CFP fewer times than the other P5, it proves there is some other inherent disadvantage with that conference that has nothing to do with the number of non-realistic playoff programs in the conference.

I think you have all made some good points, but, unless I missed it, the main issue here is the threat of missing out on what amounts to about an 80 million dollar payout for a conference when it misses the CFP. The PAC cannibalized itself this year and the result is that each of their schools will miss out on about a 6 million dollar distribution. When 4 conferences have 12 or more members and one consists of 10 there are naturally inequities. The Big 12 may be down the ladder on SOS for not having a CCG but on years like this one those 10 members will split about 7.5 million when they get a payday from the CFP.

IMO the issue here is that the other P conferences won't stand for that inequity long should they miss out on their 5 million (or in the PAC's case closer to 6).

What most university presidents want is a dependable revenue stream. The reason so many folks now talk about and push the idea of a P4 is because it guarantees each existing P4 conference an annual payout and access to the playoffs for their champion. At first you may not appreciate it but if we move to a P4 the conference Championship games will get more audience and therefore more revenue because they become de facto the first round of the playoffs.

So the pressure here is going to be for the Big 10, SEC, PAC and ACC to push for a P4 with champs only as the participants because it not only guarantees the CFP payout, but also enhances the value of their CCG's significantly.

I don't see the Big 12 adding more G5 schools. It cuts into their payout. Furthermore I don't see the other P4 tolerating it because it dilutes their profits and would ensure years when they might not be able to bank on that CFP money.

Therein lies the reason why a brokered placement of either the Big 12 or ACC's conference product is not far fetched. There is a lot of guaranteed revenue at stake if we muddle along as a P5. The really sad part is that if the Big 12 did opt to expand then outside of Cincinnati and possibly B.Y.U. some of the best candidates to make the jump would not be considered due to geography.

If the Big 12 does expand without doing so from an existing P conference I think the resulting rancor from the other 4 could be quite formidable. But as with all things we'll have to wait and see.

The P5 do have a guaranteed revenue stream from the CFP. Each conference gets something like 50 million, right off the top.

Making a CFP bowl only gets the conference another 6 million, I believe. Where are you getting an addition 80 million from??

An increased share of 12 million for the elimination of 1 conference, the additional bowl tie ins, and the extra commercial revenue from conference sponsored merchandise, etc.

But it is all split over more schools. So unless you eliminate teams, its a wash. If you eliminate 1 team, its 1/65th, so its basically a wash.

(12-23-2015 03:49 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 12:30 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  UMASS and their facilities issues is a HUGE red flag right now. Get that resolved first

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

NIU doesn't have the money nor do they fit culturally with the AAC programs.

I do not understand why you want the AAC so badly.

I didn't say NIU anywhere in my post. I made a claim about UMASS which is correct, don't drag the post OT

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk