(07-27-2017 12:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-27-2017 11:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  getting those cross conference games that tie in 2 complete regions of the country every time they are played.

This has been part of the TV formula for a long, long time. Would TV like an extra P5 vs. P5 non-conference game built into everyone's schedules -- 32 more of those games to choose from every year -- sure they would. It's a question of whether they're willing to pay for it and how much.

It also has to be something that everyone is doing, some arrangement that puts the same number of P5 games on every team's schedule. If not, someone will veto it because it's making their schedule harder than the schedules of potential competitors for CFP playoff spots.

Essentially, each league is going to have to hash out some scheduling agreement. First, you have to start with an even number of teams so that requires some degree of collusion in itself. It also means no more independence for Notre Dame...

From the network side of things, they're going to have to pay enough to at least cover the lost revenue from the extra home game or two that programs would lose. I think they probably would though. The ratings for extra conference match-ups and OOC games should more than make up the difference. The reason being is that right now a quarter to a third of the current schedule is made up of cupcakes games that only the participating fan bases will care about. So if you increase quality inventory by about one third then that should make advertisers salivate.

Speaking of cupcakes, Mike Leach addressed this issue at Pac-12 media days and said everyone should go the other way and play 8 conference games like the SEC:

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2017/...ach_l.html

Quote:During Pac-12 Media Days, Leach was asked: "Do you think it's fair that the SEC has four non-conference games with one of them usually in November when most of the rest of the country -- I think they nicknamed it the Cupcake Wars -- where most of the country is in rivalry games and the meat of the conference schedule?"

Here is Leach's response: "I think it's very smart by the SEC, and I think it's a lesson we can learn from the SEC," he said. "I think there is a lot of kind of figurative muscle flexing that goes on with regard to how many conference games and who plays who and who they play non-conference, and all this chest beating is kind of -- quite overrated. I think it's important to win your conference. I think as a result of that, I think the SEC laughs all the way to the bank. And I think other conferences would be able to laugh a little louder if we learned some of those things."

Leach also said he would be ok with more conference games as long as everyone played the same number of them.

(07-26-2017 07:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-26-2017 06:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'll take the 10 conf games. No thanks on more P5 noncnf games.

Let bowl matchups decide which conf is better than another.

I don't know about expanded playoffs but two years ago when I said that the networks were pushing for an all P schedule the rank and file hooted how that would never and could never happen. I guess Nick talking about it makes it okay and possible? It will take some time yet to get there because the conferences are going to sell each additional game 1 at a time to milk the payouts. But clearly we are headed there and it is also why there are those talking up the G5 playoff aspect.

If the networks want an expanded playoff we'll probably drop the conference championship games and everyone's #2 will be pitted against someone else's #1 in the opening round. Then the winners play it off.

If we keep conference championships it will remain a P4 but the CCG will be the expansion so to speak.

But the tone is set, we will eventually play only a P schedule. Unless they add a 13th which would take the place of the Spring Games and offcially be a preseason game in mid to late August, and then that game may be against an in state G5.

We'll see.

Interesting as always regarding the overall post.

As for the highlighted part:

It's been my belief (as well as some others) that an expanded CFP might start by including semi-final games at the conference level first. But there have always been problems with that possible scenario:

1) keeping whatever develops to the tight time frames the current system has, in other words not wanting to get too far out in the schedule where the CFP is competing with the NFL playoffs even more so than it currently does,

2) P5 likely would need to become a P4 (though not necessarily true, just seemingly more manageable),

3) regular season would become 14 games (for at least some) if a semi-final conference round was included,

4) asking the fan bases of the top contenders to possibly travel to a semi-final CCG round, a final CCG game, a basically CFP FF bowl, and then finally an NC game is a lot to expect

5) others that I am sure exist but my head starts to hurt realizing the enormity of the hurdles with just the first four

I think issues 1 and 4 only get magnified if the first round of an expanded playoff involves a 1 vs 2 Elite 8 type game, added to the already mentioned loss of a CCG income to each conference.

Not to say there aren't workarounds for any format, just that as you know there are no simple answers.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-28-2017 06:42 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-26-2017 07:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-26-2017 06:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'll take the 10 conf games. No thanks on more P5 noncnf games.

Let bowl matchups decide which conf is better than another.

I don't know about expanded playoffs but two years ago when I said that the networks were pushing for an all P schedule the rank and file hooted how that would never and could never happen. I guess Nick talking about it makes it okay and possible? It will take some time yet to get there because the conferences are going to sell each additional game 1 at a time to milk the payouts. But clearly we are headed there and it is also why there are those talking up the G5 playoff aspect.

If the networks want an expanded playoff we'll probably drop the conference championship games and everyone's #2 will be pitted against someone else's #1 in the opening round. Then the winners play it off.

If we keep conference championships it will remain a P4 but the CCG will be the expansion so to speak.

But the tone is set, we will eventually play only a P schedule. Unless they add a 13th which would take the place of the Spring Games and offcially be a preseason game in mid to late August, and then that game may be against an in state G5.

We'll see.

Interesting as always regarding the overall post.

As for the highlighted part:

It's been my belief (as well as some others) that an expanded CFP might start by including semi-final games at the conference level first. But there have always been problems with that possible scenario:

1) keeping whatever develops to the tight time frames the current system has, in other words not wanting to get too far out in the schedule where the CFP is competing with the NFL playoffs even more so than it currently does,

2) P5 likely would need to become a P4 (though not necessarily true, just seemingly more manageable),

3) regular season would become 14 games (for at least some) if a semi-final conference round was included,

4) asking the fan bases of the top contenders to possibly travel to a semi-final CCG round, a final CCG game, a basically CFP FF bowl, and then finally an NC game is a lot to expect

5) others that I am sure exist but my head starts to hurt realizing the enormity of the hurdles with just the first four

I think issues 1 and 4 only get magnified if the first round of an expanded playoff involves a 1 vs 2 Elite 8 type game, added to the already mentioned loss of a CCG income to each conference.

Not to say there aren't workarounds for any format, just that as you know there are no simple answers.

Cheers,
Neil

Good points, all.

I don't see any of this happening without a P4 that includes all potential national championship teams. And IMO that can't happen just by letting realignment take its course without some hand, invisible or otherwise, guiding it. Assuming the Big 12 does not survive the cut to 4 power conferences, it just doesn't seem likely that all the schools you would want to include (not just current B12 teams, but also the better G5 teams) would be taken on voluntarily by one of the remaining four.

And, I don't believe even a guided realignment could happen without adding a 13th date to the schedule in what is now Week Zero. That could be a true exhibition game as a payday for schools outside the P4.

Every P4 conference would, IMO, have to take on some schools they would otherwise never consider in order to get other schools that add value. And it would be up to the networks to make sure that value added is enough in order to enable the networks to get the kind of interleague matchups they would love to have in their lineup.

In a separate post I will suggest an alignment with four power conferences, each with two 9 team divisions. Every conference will find some reason not to want what they wind up with.

In my 4 X 18 model, these are the divisions:

ACC North
BC, Cincinnati, Louisville, Navy*, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

* Navy is a football only member. Indy UConn joins the ACC in all sports besides football, with a scheduling agreement similar to ND's current arrangement.

ACC South
Clemson, Duke, Florida St, Georgia Tech, Miami, NC State, UNC, Virginia, Wake Forest

SEC East
Auburn, UCF, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, USF, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

SEC West
Alabama, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi St, Missouri, Oklahoma, OK State, Ole Miss, Texas A&M

B1G East
Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St, Northwestern, Ohio St, Penn St, Purdue, Rutgers

B1G West
Illinois, Iowa, Iowa St, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Texas, Texas Tech, Wisconsin

PAC West
Boise St**, California, Oregon, Oregon St, USC, Stanford, UCLA, Washington, Washington St

PAC East
Arizona, Arizona St, BYU**, Colorado, Houston, Kansas St, San Diego St, TCU, Utah

** Boise and BYU for FB only. Boise would have to put other sports in a conference other than the MWC.

All divisions would play a balanced four home, four away division round robin schedule. Only games within the division would count toward determining the division champion.

In this alignment, there are only two intra-conference rivalry games that would have to be guaranteed: Virginia-Virginia Tech and Alabama-Auburn. Note that Auburn has already requested that they be moved to the SEC East. Other possible games that the parties may want to be protected would include Alabama-Tennessee and BYU-Boise St.

OOC rivalries that may be protected (or resumed) would include:

Louisville - Kentucky
Pitt - Penn State
Clemson - South Carolina
Florida St - Florida
Georgia Tech - Georgia
Notre Dame - Stanford
Notre Dame - USC
Kansas - Kansas St
Kansas - Missouri
Texas - Oklahoma
Texas - Texas A&M

With the movement of an FCS (or G5) game to preseason, these OOC games can be accommodated pretty painlessly.

I would suggest that the conferences agree to replace their CCG with a quarterfinal round including all 8 division champions. The difference in the per school revenue that would result from sharing the Round of 8 revenue equally among the 72 schools instead of each conference having its own pot of money to share would be negligible when viewed against these school's overall budgets.

Rather than having each conference pit their division champs against each other, I would use the AP and Coaches' Polls*** to seed them from 1 to 8 and bracket them in the normal manner.

*** I would have all poll voters submit a separate poll from the regular season (which includes all FBS teams). Just have them rank each division champ from 1-8 and score accordingly.

Quarterfinal losers would be guaranteed a spot in a New Year's bowl.

In my scenario above, I assumed that none of the P4 would want to take Baylor because of its off field baggage. They would be the only FBS school whose five year average Sagarin power rating falls within the Top 50 that fails to reach P4 status.

Only nine schools left behind in the G5 have an average power rating in the Top 72:

Baylor, Utah St, Toledo, Western Kentucky, Northern Illinois, Memphis, Temple, Arkansas St and Louisiana Tech (listed from highest rating to lowest).

The nine schools making my cut despite a power rating outside the Top 72 are (in order of poorest rating to strongest) are:

Kansas, Purdue, Wake Forest, Illinois, Rutgers, USF, Virginia, Colorado and Maryland.

It isn't perfect - no alignment will be - but I think I could defend this as a rationale for excluding teams from outside the P4 for consideration in a national championship playoff.

Don't need realignment to expand the playoff.

If it's 8 teams, it's 5 conference winners plus 3 at-large teams. Simple.

If it's 16 teams ... then you could consider JR's idea of not having CCGs. Say the Big 12 starts using divisions so that each P5 conference has two divisions. Skip CCGs and give a playoff spot to each of the 10 division winners, and have 6 at-large teams. Four rounds of playoff games, multiple teams from each region, would be worth a lot of TV money. And without CCGs, there would be plenty of time to fit in four weeks of playoff games.

I still think the most money per round stops at an 8-team playoff, just like it stops at a 64-ish team college basketball tournament. Three weeks is as much of this as TV wants. TV will decide that a fourth week is not worth as much to them, and will offer much less for further playoff expansion than the conferences/schools would hope to receive.

(07-28-2017 06:42 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-26-2017 07:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-26-2017 06:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'll take the 10 conf games. No thanks on more P5 noncnf games.

Let bowl matchups decide which conf is better than another.

I don't know about expanded playoffs but two years ago when I said that the networks were pushing for an all P schedule the rank and file hooted how that would never and could never happen. I guess Nick talking about it makes it okay and possible? It will take some time yet to get there because the conferences are going to sell each additional game 1 at a time to milk the payouts. But clearly we are headed there and it is also why there are those talking up the G5 playoff aspect.

If the networks want an expanded playoff we'll probably drop the conference championship games and everyone's #2 will be pitted against someone else's #1 in the opening round. Then the winners play it off.

If we keep conference championships it will remain a P4 but the CCG will be the expansion so to speak.

But the tone is set, we will eventually play only a P schedule. Unless they add a 13th which would take the place of the Spring Games and offcially be a preseason game in mid to late August, and then that game may be against an in state G5.

We'll see.

Interesting as always regarding the overall post.

As for the highlighted part:

It's been my belief (as well as some others) that an expanded CFP might start by including semi-final games at the conference level first. But there have always been problems with that possible scenario:

1) keeping whatever develops to the tight time frames the current system has, in other words not wanting to get too far out in the schedule where the CFP is competing with the NFL playoffs even more so than it currently does,

2) P5 likely would need to become a P4 (though not necessarily true, just seemingly more manageable),

3) regular season would become 14 games (for at least some) if a semi-final conference round was included,

4) asking the fan bases of the top contenders to possibly travel to a semi-final CCG round, a final CCG game, a basically CFP FF bowl, and then finally an NC game is a lot to expect

5) others that I am sure exist but my head starts to hurt realizing the enormity of the hurdles with just the first four

I think issues 1 and 4 only get magnified if the first round of an expanded playoff involves a 1 vs 2 Elite 8 type game, added to the already mentioned loss of a CCG income to each conference.

Not to say there aren't workarounds for any format, just that as you know there are no simple answers.

Cheers,
Neil

1. I think you misread my post. I said if we move to 8 the CCG would be eliminated. If so we play no more games than we do now. 4 conferences playing a CCG = 8 teams.

4 conferences with a #1 and #2 seed in the CFP= 8 teams. The total for the CCG plus the CFP is 3 games. The total for the 8 school playoff is 3 games.

2. Fans have to travel to the CCG. They have to travel to 2 CFP games now. I agree the travel even now is a problem but there is no additional problem with 2 teams per the 4 conferences playing it off. No difference!

3. The increased tie ins of 2 distinct regions merely adds to the profitability whereas in some cases CCG's are merely repeat games for that season.

So Neil, What I suggested is no different in substance than what we do now and your listed objections amount to nothing in that regard.

The real difficulty is in the placement of schools, but then there is nothing new there either. Since we started speculating about the demise of the Big 12 the placement of the schools has been the issue. But while there is no good way to divide that product by virtue of value, there is a reasonable solution for the division based on scheduling issues.

If we move to 12 P games the best schedule for the networks would be 9 conference games and 1 OOC game against each of the other 3 conferences for each school. If you assumed that kind of model then you would want to divide the Big 12 in such a way where rivals all found themselves in different conferences. For instance if Texas / Oklahoma / and Oklahoma State were all three in different conferences then Oklahoma could play Texas and OSU and tie in 2 conferences in each game. Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and T.C.U. could be used to do the same. If just 3 of them are different conferences then when they play they draw in larger potential audiences than they do now, and now they draw in a large number of Texans.

If we ever move away from CCG's, it will be because there is more to prove and far more interest in seeing cross conference match ups that involve multiple regions of the nation, as opposed to just one. Where I see the risk to the networks in this is if say at the end of the first round only two conferences with 2 schools each were still in the mix. It might be a rare occurrence but if it happened they would have potentially fewer viewers for the 2nd round games than they have now in the first weekend of the CFP. But they would likely still have more viewers in the first round than the CCG's usually provide. So the risk is probably still worth it.

But that's just my guess.

Hail JR!

I should have made my post clearer. I was giving my previous thoughts about how expanding the playoffs to 16 (or 18 with a P5 in tact) teams might involve a conference semi-final round game being needed. The problems listed with "that" scenario was in regard mainly to that specific scenario, regarding the conference semi-final games being the likely vehicle to getting to an expanded playoff, and by default a champions only model - whether those champions came from 4 or 5 conferences - with the weakest champion being left out if P5 and not P4.

(07-28-2017 11:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 06:42 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-26-2017 07:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-26-2017 06:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'll take the 10 conf games. No thanks on more P5 noncnf games.

Let bowl matchups decide which conf is better than another.

I don't know about expanded playoffs but two years ago when I said that the networks were pushing for an all P schedule the rank and file hooted how that would never and could never happen. I guess Nick talking about it makes it okay and possible? It will take some time yet to get there because the conferences are going to sell each additional game 1 at a time to milk the payouts. But clearly we are headed there and it is also why there are those talking up the G5 playoff aspect.

If the networks want an expanded playoff we'll probably drop the conference championship games and everyone's #2 will be pitted against someone else's #1 in the opening round. Then the winners play it off.

If we keep conference championships it will remain a P4 but the CCG will be the expansion so to speak.

But the tone is set, we will eventually play only a P schedule. Unless they add a 13th which would take the place of the Spring Games and offcially be a preseason game in mid to late August, and then that game may be against an in state G5.

We'll see.

Interesting as always regarding the overall post.

As for the highlighted part:

It's been my belief (as well as some others) that an expanded CFP might start by including semi-final games at the conference level first. But there have always been problems with that possible scenario:

1) keeping whatever develops to the tight time frames the current system has, in other words not wanting to get too far out in the schedule where the CFP is competing with the NFL playoffs even more so than it currently does,

2) P5 likely would need to become a P4 (though not necessarily true, just seemingly more manageable),

3) regular season would become 14 games (for at least some) if a semi-final conference round was included,

4) asking the fan bases of the top contenders to possibly travel to a semi-final CCG round, a final CCG game, a basically CFP FF bowl, and then finally an NC game is a lot to expect

5) others that I am sure exist but my head starts to hurt realizing the enormity of the hurdles with just the first four

I think issues 1 and 4 only get magnified if the first round of an expanded playoff involves a 1 vs 2 Elite 8 type game, added to the already mentioned loss of a CCG income to each conference.

Not to say there aren't workarounds for any format, just that as you know there are no simple answers.

Cheers,
Neil

1. I think you misread my post. I said if we move to 8 the CCG would be eliminated. If so we play no more games than we do now. 4 conferences playing a CCG = 8 teams.

4 conferences with a #1 and #2 seed in the CFP= 8 teams. The total for the CCG plus the CFP is 3 games. The total for the 8 school playoff is 3 games.

Understood.

Quote:2. Fans have to travel to the CCG. They have to travel to 2 CFP games now. I agree the travel even now is a problem but there is no additional problem with 2 teams per the 4 conferences playing it off. No difference!

3. The increased tie ins of 2 distinct regions merely adds to the profitability whereas in some cases CCG's are merely repeat games for that season.

So Neil, What I suggested is no different in substance than what we do now and your listed objections amount to nothing in that regard.

Well, I am not sure "no difference" is truly applicable here without detail. It will, of course, depend upon how you see those 1 vs 2 match-ups being scheduled and where they are to take place. Since you left out a lot of the detail in your scenario, this is why I chose to list my previous scenario and the problems inherit in that to show that problems can occur with any scenario.

Example, let's say in your scenario for a particular year Syracuse is the #2 team in the ACC (in my dreams) but where they go in your system could very well involve far greater travel than simply going to the ACCCG in Charlotte (the potential destination in the current situation to get to the CFP Final Four).

Continuing this example using your scenario, let's say Southern Cal is the overall #1 seed with Syracuse being the overall #8 seed. In your set-up where do you see this game taking place? Because how that question is answered is what will determine if having tie-ins with 2 distinct regions at the Elite 8 level is indeed "no difference" than what we have now.

Also, in your scenario, when do you see these Elite 8 games being played? Is it during the week currently reserved for CCGs? If not, when?

Quote:The real difficulty is in the placement of schools, but then there is nothing new there either. Since we started speculating about the demise of the Big 12 the placement of the schools has been the issue. But while there is no good way to divide that product by virtue of value, there is a reasonable solution for the division based on scheduling issues.

If we move to 12 P games the best schedule for the networks would be 9 conference games and 1 OOC game against each of the other 3 conferences for each school. If you assumed that kind of model then you would want to divide the Big 12 in such a way where rivals all found themselves in different conferences. For instance if Texas / Oklahoma / and Oklahoma State were all three in different conferences then Oklahoma could play Texas and OSU and tie in 2 conferences in each game. Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and T.C.U. could be used to do the same. If just 3 of them are different conferences then when they play they draw in larger potential audiences than they do now, and now they draw in a large number of Texans.

I don't want to address the placement of schools issue because it is a hot button topic that always seems to derail threads. I'd rather this new addition to the board avoids this kind of derailing as much as feasibly possible.

Quote:If we ever move away from CCG's, it will be because there is more to prove and far more interest in seeing cross conference match ups that involve multiple regions of the nation, as opposed to just one. Where I see the risk to the networks in this is if say at the end of the first round only two conferences with 2 schools each were still in the mix. It might be a rare occurrence but if it happened they would have potentially fewer viewers for the 2nd round games than they have now in the first weekend of the CFP. But they would likely still have more viewers in the first round than the CCG's usually provide. So the risk is probably still worth it.

But that's just my guess.

Understood. As always JR, a pleasure.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-28-2017 03:15 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  Hail JR!

I should have made my post clearer. I was giving my previous thoughts about how expanding the playoffs to 16 (or 18 with a P5 in tact) teams might involve a conference semi-final round game being needed. The problems listed with "that" scenario was in regard mainly to that specific scenario, regarding the conference semi-final games being the likely vehicle to getting to an expanded playoff, and by default a champions only model - whether those champions came from 4 or 5 conferences - with the weakest champion being left out if P5 and not P4.

(07-28-2017 11:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 06:42 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-26-2017 07:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-26-2017 06:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'll take the 10 conf games. No thanks on more P5 noncnf games.

Let bowl matchups decide which conf is better than another.

I don't know about expanded playoffs but two years ago when I said that the networks were pushing for an all P schedule the rank and file hooted how that would never and could never happen. I guess Nick talking about it makes it okay and possible? It will take some time yet to get there because the conferences are going to sell each additional game 1 at a time to milk the payouts. But clearly we are headed there and it is also why there are those talking up the G5 playoff aspect.

If the networks want an expanded playoff we'll probably drop the conference championship games and everyone's #2 will be pitted against someone else's #1 in the opening round. Then the winners play it off.

If we keep conference championships it will remain a P4 but the CCG will be the expansion so to speak.

But the tone is set, we will eventually play only a P schedule. Unless they add a 13th which would take the place of the Spring Games and offcially be a preseason game in mid to late August, and then that game may be against an in state G5.

We'll see.

Interesting as always regarding the overall post.

As for the highlighted part:

It's been my belief (as well as some others) that an expanded CFP might start by including semi-final games at the conference level first. But there have always been problems with that possible scenario:

1) keeping whatever develops to the tight time frames the current system has, in other words not wanting to get too far out in the schedule where the CFP is competing with the NFL playoffs even more so than it currently does,

2) P5 likely would need to become a P4 (though not necessarily true, just seemingly more manageable),

3) regular season would become 14 games (for at least some) if a semi-final conference round was included,

4) asking the fan bases of the top contenders to possibly travel to a semi-final CCG round, a final CCG game, a basically CFP FF bowl, and then finally an NC game is a lot to expect

5) others that I am sure exist but my head starts to hurt realizing the enormity of the hurdles with just the first four

I think issues 1 and 4 only get magnified if the first round of an expanded playoff involves a 1 vs 2 Elite 8 type game, added to the already mentioned loss of a CCG income to each conference.

Not to say there aren't workarounds for any format, just that as you know there are no simple answers.

Cheers,
Neil

1. I think you misread my post. I said if we move to 8 the CCG would be eliminated. If so we play no more games than we do now. 4 conferences playing a CCG = 8 teams.

4 conferences with a #1 and #2 seed in the CFP= 8 teams. The total for the CCG plus the CFP is 3 games. The total for the 8 school playoff is 3 games.

Understood.

Quote:2. Fans have to travel to the CCG. They have to travel to 2 CFP games now. I agree the travel even now is a problem but there is no additional problem with 2 teams per the 4 conferences playing it off. No difference!

3. The increased tie ins of 2 distinct regions merely adds to the profitability whereas in some cases CCG's are merely repeat games for that season.

So Neil, What I suggested is no different in substance than what we do now and your listed objections amount to nothing in that regard.

Well, I am not sure "no difference" is truly applicable here without detail. It will, of course, depend upon how you see those 1 vs 2 match-ups being scheduled and where they are to take place. Since you left out a lot of the detail in your scenario, this is why I chose to list my previous scenario and the problems inherit in that to show that problems can occur with any scenario.

Example, let's say in your scenario for a particular year Syracuse is the #2 team in the ACC (in my dreams) but where they go in your system could very well involve far greater travel than simply going to the ACCCG in Charlotte (the potential destination in the current situation to get to the CFP Final Four).

Continuing this example using your scenario, let's say Southern Cal is the overall #1 seed with Syracuse being the overall #8 seed. In your set-up where do you see this game taking place? Because how that question is answered is what will determine if having tie-ins with 2 distinct regions at the Elite 8 level is indeed "no difference" than what we have now.

Also, in your scenario, when do you see these Elite 8 games being played? Is it during the week currently reserved for CCGs? If not, when?

Quote:The real difficulty is in the placement of schools, but then there is nothing new there either. Since we started speculating about the demise of the Big 12 the placement of the schools has been the issue. But while there is no good way to divide that product by virtue of value, there is a reasonable solution for the division based on scheduling issues.

If we move to 12 P games the best schedule for the networks would be 9 conference games and 1 OOC game against each of the other 3 conferences for each school. If you assumed that kind of model then you would want to divide the Big 12 in such a way where rivals all found themselves in different conferences. For instance if Texas / Oklahoma / and Oklahoma State were all three in different conferences then Oklahoma could play Texas and OSU and tie in 2 conferences in each game. Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and T.C.U. could be used to do the same. If just 3 of them are different conferences then when they play they draw in larger potential audiences than they do now, and now they draw in a large number of Texans.

I don't want to address the placement of schools issue because it is a hot button topic that always seems to derail threads. I'd rather this new addition to the board avoids this kind of derailing as much as feasibly possible.

Quote:If we ever move away from CCG's, it will be because there is more to prove and far more interest in seeing cross conference match ups that involve multiple regions of the nation, as opposed to just one. Where I see the risk to the networks in this is if say at the end of the first round only two conferences with 2 schools each were still in the mix. It might be a rare occurrence but if it happened they would have potentially fewer viewers for the 2nd round games than they have now in the first weekend of the CFP. But they would likely still have more viewers in the first round than the CCG's usually provide. So the risk is probably still worth it.

But that's just my guess.

Understood. As always JR, a pleasure.

Cheers,
Neil

They would be played on CCG weekend.

I intentionally left out the details because I didn't want to discuss whether we should utilize the existing bowl structure, for rounds 1 & 2 or whether it would be better to play round 1 and the home of the higher seed.

For reasons you laid out and I agreed with, the travel for three straight weekends is an issue. Since 15,000 is a reasonable allotment for a visiting school and unsold portions of the traveling team are usually sold locally, I don't see an issue with the #2's traveling to the #1's home venue for round 1. If in your hypothetical Syracuse sells it's allotment and charters planes to the game then great. If folks stay home and cheer on the Orange from their living rooms & dens then wonderful. I think if the first round is played at the higher seed's home then more sellouts are likely. Then round 2 could be held at pre-scheduled venues and if you preferred bowls could be utilized. The finals will be the finals no matter who is in them and can be tied to a bowl or to a bid submitted location. This way each conference (in a 4 conference scenario) would have a home game and a road game to open the playoffs. Then all remaining games would be at neutral sites whether tied to bowls or bid accepted venues.

I'd also say that the losers of the elite 8 should be eligible for other bowls, just as they are now with the CCG.

Losers of Round 2 would not be.

And I don't see us ever expanding to 16. That's too many weeks with players depleted (at this point) by 12 weeks of P competition. The injury risk is too high and the duration would be too long. So we are in definite agreement on that issue.

While having a conference champion declared is nice, most years we know who the better team is by that point and most of our schools would rather play someone not from our conference, and definitely not a school they had already played.

So while the current system is fine, I do see an upside to eliminating the CCG and placing 4 non conference games on that weekend.

(07-28-2017 03:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  For reasons you laid out and I agreed with, the travel for three straight weekends is an issue. Since 15,000 is a reasonable allotment for a visiting school and unsold portions of the traveling team are usually sold locally, I don't see an issue with the #2's traveling to the #1's home venue for round 1. If in your hypothetical Syracuse sells it's allotment and charters planes to the game then great. If folks stay home and cheer on the Orange from their living rooms & dens then wonderful. I think if the first round is played at the higher seed's home then more sellouts are likely. Then round 2 could be held at pre-scheduled venues and if you preferred bowls could be utilized. The finals will be the finals no matter who is in them and can be tied to a bowl or to a bid submitted location.

You're both right, first round would have to be at the home stadium of the higher seed. It's true that we see diehard fans travel far for March Madness, but the arena capacities are far smaller than stadium capacities, and that's the difference. Can't count on having 10x as many traveling football fans as whatever is the number of KU or UNC fans traveling for each weekend of March Madness.

(07-28-2017 03:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And I don't see us ever expanding to 16. That's too many weeks with players depleted (at this point) by 12 weeks of P competition. The injury risk is too high and the duration would be too long. So we are in definite agreement on that issue.

I doubt the TV money for a fourth week would be worth it, either, and that would be the deciding factor. Another comparison to March Madness: The NCAA found out that CBS and Turner were not interested in paying proportionally for a fourth weekend of the basketball tournament, and that's why March Madness is still at 64-ish teams and three weeks. The TV attitude toward the CFP would be similar. Three weeks is just right, a fourth week isn't worth as much money as the colleges would hope for.

(07-28-2017 04:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 03:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  For reasons you laid out and I agreed with, the travel for three straight weekends is an issue. Since 15,000 is a reasonable allotment for a visiting school and unsold portions of the traveling team are usually sold locally, I don't see an issue with the #2's traveling to the #1's home venue for round 1. If in your hypothetical Syracuse sells it's allotment and charters planes to the game then great. If folks stay home and cheer on the Orange from their living rooms & dens then wonderful. I think if the first round is played at the higher seed's home then more sellouts are likely. Then round 2 could be held at pre-scheduled venues and if you preferred bowls could be utilized. The finals will be the finals no matter who is in them and can be tied to a bowl or to a bid submitted location.

You're both right, first round would have to be at the home stadium of the higher seed. It's true that we see diehard fans travel far for March Madness, but the arena capacities are far smaller than stadium capacities, and that's the difference. Can't count on having 10x as many traveling football fans as whatever is the number of KU or UNC fans traveling for each weekend of March Madness.

(07-28-2017 03:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And I don't see us ever expanding to 16. That's too many weeks with players depleted (at this point) by 12 weeks of P competition. The injury risk is too high and the duration would be too long. So we are in definite agreement on that issue.

I doubt the TV money for a fourth week would be worth it, either, and that would be the deciding factor. Another comparison to March Madness: The NCAA found out that CBS and Turner were not interested in paying proportionally for a fourth weekend of the basketball tournament, and that's why March Madness is still at 64-ish teams and three weeks. The TV attitude toward the CFP would be similar. Three weeks is just right, a fourth week isn't worth as much money as the colleges would hope for.

Seeding the teams eliminates the possibility of the upset that could ruin the playoffs.

p5 vs p5. hmm....this will look good and sound good but when half of the p5 teams struggle to get 7-8 wins and the seats start emptying out, then reality will set back in.

I see a 13th game coming. Too much money being left on the table for it not to happen.
More P5 competition in conference and out. It also eliminates 6-6 bowl teams.
CJ

All of this will happen when the p5 becomes the p4 and the networks decide how many teams they are willing to pay.

The money is shrinking and there is no way ESPN and Fox are going to want to pay money for 130 D1 schools. Behind closed doors they are trying to figure out what there magic number is, is it 64, or is it 72.

They will work together to consolidate their assets because it is in their own best interest to do so.

The day's of App st. Beating Michigan in the Big house will be over, because it will be P vs P only.

I personally do not think it's a coincidence to hear this kind of talk coming out of Saban's mouth. Where there is smoke there is fire boys, and D1 football as we know it and have known it, is about to burn.

(07-29-2017 06:04 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  All of this will happen when the p5 becomes the p4 and the networks decide how many teams they are willing to pay.

The money is shrinking and there is no way ESPN and Fox are going to want to pay money for 130 D1 schools. Behind closed doors they are trying to figure out what there magic number is, is it 64, or is it 72.

They will work together to consolidate their assets because it is in their own best interest to do so.

The day's of App st. Beating Michigan in the Big house will be over, because it will be P vs P only.

I personally do not think it's a coincidence to hear this kind of talk coming out of Saban's mouth. Where there is smoke there is fire boys, and D1 football as we know it and have known it, is about to burn.

We would be in agreement on this. What I would offer is that 60 is a possible final number as well. It's been kicked around, but I still favor a 4 x 18. It accounts for the current 64 and Notre Dame plus 7 of the strongest G5. But I wouldn't be surprised with Baylor's issues if it is 64.

As stipends move forward it is possible that a few could choose to drop out of the current 65, especially some privates where the nations new data on enrollment indicates great difficulties ahead for such schools.

I think in less than 10 years the G5 will be a G4 and they will have their own playoff and the P5 will be a P4 and essentially have the same.

We'll see.

The closer college football gets to 2020, the clearer the future will become. The Big 12 will be ground zero for the coming changes. Their GOR expires on June 30, 2025 but agreements will be in place well before that date.
CJ

(07-30-2017 07:02 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The closer college football gets to 2020, the clearer the future will become. The Big 12 will be ground zero for the coming changes. Their GOR expires on June 30, 2025 but agreements will be in place well before that date.
CJ

TV contracts for the Mountain West, AAC and BYU all renew in 2019.

Even if the P5/P4 scheduled only other P5/P4, that still isn't a valid reason to make a new football subdivision in DI. The current FCS and FBS are correct. The conferences in each are correct. That does not need to change, and there would be no further benefit to making a FCS+ subdivision for just the G5/G6. No money comes from FBS itself!

(07-26-2017 09:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Saban says the 6-win bowl threshold causes teams to schedule softly, but it's more than that. Teams want fat W-L records to keep the donor dollars flowing, and they want cupcakes on the schedule to keep the W-L records fat.

Coaches and ADs who are now trying to win 7 or 8 or 9 to keep the donors happy don't want to be forced to convince those egotistical rich guy boosters that winning fewer games is still OK just because the schedule is more difficult. I think that fact is an obstacle that Saban's plan will never be able to overcome.

Just schedule Kansas for a easy cupcake wins. P5 schools are really starting to schedule the strong non-cupcake G5 and FCS teams more.