Buckeye Talk: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3aHy0BB...=copy-link

OSU AD Gene Smith's Press Conference: https://youtu.be/igNOF1h9bJE

So there were a couple topics, among many, from OSU AD Gene Smith's press conference this past Wednesday that were discussed and analyzed on an OSU podcast: Buckeye Talk. I wanted to bring those 2 up here for discussion. Obviously the Big Ten considering eliminating divisions and moving away from Alliance scheduling got the most traction from the press conference, but didn't see much on here about the other 2 topics.
Note: this was out before playoff expansion was put on hold, but could be used to discuss in future CFP expansion talks. I also included a link for Gene Smith's full press conference, and left the topics kinda vague to encourage you all to listen to Buckeye Talk, but tried to give enough for those who may not have time to listen to it.
Press Conference: 16:50 to 18:50, 22:58 to 24:28, 32:48 to 35:14

The 1st topic was about Gene Smith wanting to give northern playoff teams who are hosting the 1st round of an expanded CFP the flexibility to play in an indoor, neutral site due to the potential for bad weather, clean playing field environment, and player safety (avoiding players playing on frozen fields). They also discuss how it could work in practice deciding the host venue and the challenges, and if there would actually be an advantage playing at home in bad weather.
Discussed from 3:55 to 18:34 on Buckeye Talk

The 2nd topic was how devalued CCGs are for the sport (outside of money), getting rid of CCGs, and the length of the season when the CFP is expanded to 12 teams to go with player safety. No divisions/protected rivalry games, conference champions week (ex. 2020 Big Ten schedule), and the potential of OSU playing Michigan (or this happening to any rivalry game) 3 times in a season with the top 2 teams in a CCG and an expanded playoff.
Discussed from 18:34 to 37:00 on Buckeye Talk

My take: I have no problem giving teams flexibility to move to an indoor neutral site if a team wants to move their game for player safety reasons. I also would support eliminating CCGs or at least going to a Conference Champions week format (maybe keeping the CCGs on campus so teams don't lose that extra home game) if it'll push the way for a 12 team CFP, provide better safety for players, and not cost conferences money (you know, since money drives everything). Also, starting a 12 team CFP sooner (1st week of December vs. 3rd week of December) could provide more playoff games on campuses and finish the season for players as it is currently, but waiting to start the CFP on the 3rd week of December wouldn't be a deal breaker for me.

(02-21-2022 08:56 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  The 2nd topic was how devalued CCGs are for the sport (outside of money), getting rid of CCGs...

The bolded is why no one is getting rid of CCGs.

The Big Ten and SEC CCGs are now worth more than their respective tie-ins to the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl. THAT'S how much money they're making and it actually is fairly rational since those CCGs are regularly getting higher ratings than multiple NY6 bowls in the same season.

If the Big Ten is willing to pause the CFP discussion in part to protect the value of the Rose Bowl, you can be d*mn well sure that they're only agreeing to a playoff system that will protect the value of their CCG, too. This is one issue where the Big Ten and SEC are totally on the same page.

(02-21-2022 08:56 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  My take: I have no problem giving teams flexibility to move to an indoor neutral site if a team wants to move their game for player safety reasons.

IMO a team that wants to host a "home" playoff game on a field other than its regular home field needs to designate that field as their playoff home field prior to the start of the regular season.

Otherwise, we would be leaving the door open for teams to switch to a different field after learning who their playoff opponent would be, or in anticipation of who it might be. If Michigan wants to host playoff games in the Lions' dome in Detroit, they can, but they can't switch between stadiums to try and gain an advantage over the visiting team. And it's not just cold weather teams that could pull that kind of stunt. Suppose USC is hosting a game, and rain is predicted for game day, and they decide a wet grass field favors their opponent, so after the bracket is announced they decide to play on turf under the canopy in the Rams' stadium.

(02-21-2022 09:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 08:56 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  My take: I have no problem giving teams flexibility to move to an indoor neutral site if a team wants to move their game for player safety reasons.

IMO a team that wants to host a "home" playoff game on a field other than its regular home field needs to designate that field as their playoff home field prior to the start of the regular season.

Otherwise, we would be leaving the door open for teams to switch to a different field after learning who their playoff opponent would be, or in anticipation of who it might be. If Michigan wants to host playoff games in the Lions' dome in Detroit, they can, but they can't switch between stadiums to try and gain an advantage over the visiting team. And it's not just cold weather teams that could pull that kind of stunt. Suppose USC is hosting a game, and rain is predicted for game day, and they decide a wet grass field favors their opponent, so after the bracket is announced they decide to play on turf under the canopy in the Rams' stadium.

Listening to Buckeye Talk, their conclusion was that they had to announce it when it came time to release the bracket kinda like how the #1 seed in the CFP is now like, team X, you’re playing team Y, where do you want to play the game? Then once that decision is made, the bracket is announced and it can’t be changed. Obviously there would be more options to choose where to host compared to 2 bowls.

Thanks for posting this, interesting stuff.

My take is that I have zero interest in hearing conferences talking about doing things for "player safety". First of all, I just don't trust what they say. Second of all, and really more importantly, what conferences say or do is irrelevant because the players themselves will naturally do what is safe for them. Especially the ones headed for the NFL, as they will have advisors and managers and NFL scouts and agents telling them whether playing X number of games is too risky.

Also, as for moving playoff games in northern stadiums, IMO that is a dumbfounding idea. Why on earth would an Ohio State want to play a playoff game anywhere but in Ohio Stadium? That's where they will have the greatest home field advantage. Again, player safety is IMO a meaningless concept, as football players play games outdoors in the snow, rain, etc. at all levels of their career. But if a B1G team is dumb enough to want to do this, sure, why not?

(02-21-2022 09:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Thanks for posting this, interesting stuff.

My take is that I have zero interest in hearing conferences talking about doing things for "player safety". First of all, I just don't trust what they say. Second of all, and really more importantly, what conferences say or do is irrelevant because the players themselves will naturally do what is safe for them. Especially the ones headed for the NFL, as they will have advisors and managers and NFL scouts and agents telling them whether playing X number of games is too risky.

Also, as for moving playoff games in northern stadiums, IMO that is a dumbfounding idea. Why on earth would an Ohio State want to play a playoff game anywhere but in Ohio Stadium? That's where they will have the greatest home field advantage. Again, player safety is IMO a meaningless concept, as football players play games outdoors in the snow, rain, etc. at all levels of their career. But if a B1G team is dumb enough to want to do this, sure, why not?

The main issue with several (and maybe even all) Big Ten stadiums is that they’re not winterized. Putting aside player safety, it’s not necessarily safe for spectators. There may be few or no heated areas, particularly bathrooms. The plumbing systems may be designed with the assumption that the water will be drained out for the winter before there are prolonged freezing temps. If there’s snow or, even worse, ice, the stadiums aren’t necessarily set up to remove them in a way that an NFL stadium designed to be used in winter conditions.

Believe me - if Illinois ever somehow made the CFP, I’d personally want a home game in Champaign. However, many Big Ten and other Northern stadiums can’t just assume that they can safely host a mid-December game without making a lot of structural modifications, which obviously costs money that may or not be worth it for the off-chance that your school might host a playoff game one day. It’s something that the schools outside of the North clearly don’t even think twice about.

Looks like Lucas Oil Stadium and Ford Field will be de facto B1G home fields in the new CFP.

If the proposed Bears indoor stadium at Arlington Park becomes reality, that becomes a potential playoff location for several teams.

By the way, further to my last point, none of the Big Ten schools can actually say that the reason that they don’t want to play playoff home games in December is because of *spectator* safety since that provides a smoking gun for every trial lawyer in America for every slip and fall case in those venues. (“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: the school AD told Paul Finebaum in national TV that their stadium isn’t safe and yet they still hold games there! Of course they’re liable!”)

However, those liability reasons are a big time concern in reality. 100,000 people coming to a venue that can’t be de-iced and no one can use toilets due to frozen bathroom pipes is what these schools are REALLY worried about (and honestly SHOULD be worried about). It would be a frozen college football version of the Fyre Festival. They simply can’t ever admit that publicly, which is why we get a lot of talk about player safety instead.

(02-21-2022 09:51 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 09:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 08:56 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  My take: I have no problem giving teams flexibility to move to an indoor neutral site if a team wants to move their game for player safety reasons.

IMO a team that wants to host a "home" playoff game on a field other than its regular home field needs to designate that field as their playoff home field prior to the start of the regular season.

Otherwise, we would be leaving the door open for teams to switch to a different field after learning who their playoff opponent would be, or in anticipation of who it might be. If Michigan wants to host playoff games in the Lions' dome in Detroit, they can, but they can't switch between stadiums to try and gain an advantage over the visiting team. And it's not just cold weather teams that could pull that kind of stunt. Suppose USC is hosting a game, and rain is predicted for game day, and they decide a wet grass field favors their opponent, so after the bracket is announced they decide to play on turf under the canopy in the Rams' stadium.

Listening to Buckeye Talk, their conclusion was that they had to announce it when it came time to release the bracket kinda like how the #1 seed in the CFP is now like, team X, you’re playing team Y, where do you want to play the game? Then once that decision is made, the bracket is announced and it can’t be changed. Obviously there would be more options to choose where to host compared to 2 bowls.

At least some oversight would be useful, as with site selection at the NCAA baseball tournament.

A college baseball team that is a possible high seed and regional host in the NCAA tournament can submit a bid a few weeks before selection day to host on their home field, or they might elect to host a regional at a nearby minor league ballpark, or another college's ballpark, for various reasons. The committee makes the final decision on whether to approve the host and the site (and, presumably, might give feedback to a team about whether the proposed site is acceptable to the committee).

Similarly, a college football team would submit a bid by November 15 in which they identify the stadium that would be used if they are chosen to host a playoff game.

(02-21-2022 09:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Thanks for posting this, interesting stuff.

Also, as for moving playoff games in northern stadiums, IMO that is a dumbfounding idea. Why on earth would an Ohio State want to play a playoff game anywhere but in Ohio Stadium? That's where they will have the greatest home field advantage. Again, player safety is IMO a meaningless concept, as football players play games outdoors in the snow, rain, etc. at all levels of their career. But if a B1G team is dumb enough to want to do this, sure, why not?

That game at Michigan in the snow scared the **** out of Ohio State. They don’t want that to happen in a playoff game.

Where the alliance screwed up was trying to make it a regular season scheduling agreement. It should have been a post-season scheduling agreement.
Alliance East “conference” championship
- ACC champ (by regular season record)
- B1G East champ
Alliance West “conference” championship
- PAC champ (by regular season record)
- B1G West champ

It reduces the alliance from 3 CCGs to 2, but I guarantee Pitt vs Mich and Utah vs Iowa draws >1.5x the eyeballs and revenue of Mich/Iowa, UU/UO (rematch), Pitt/WF. It also funnels into the Alliance Championship as the Rose Bowl.

(02-21-2022 09:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 08:56 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  The 2nd topic was how devalued CCGs are for the sport (outside of money), getting rid of CCGs...

The bolded is why no one is getting rid of CCGs.

The Big Ten and SEC CCGs are now worth more than their respective tie-ins to the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl. THAT'S how much money they're making and it actually is fairly rational since those CCGs are regularly getting higher ratings than multiple NY6 bowls in the same season.

If the Big Ten is willing to pause the CFP discussion in part to protect the value of the Rose Bowl, you can be d*mn well sure that they're only agreeing to a playoff system that will protect the value of their CCG, too. This is one issue where the Big Ten and SEC are totally on the same page.

So huge no on getting rid of CCGs, but there's still room for discussing about altering the format as opposed to getting rid of it by using conference champions week format. Is sacrificing 1 random conference game overall to keep the CCG a big ask? Since the Big Ten is considering getting rid of divisions, I'll use them as an example.

Big Ten plays their 3 non-conference games as normal, then for comference-play, their play 3 protected rivals (Ohio State's 3 are probably TTUN, PSU, and either MSU or ILL; Illinois' are probably NW, PUR and either IND or OSU) and rotate their other 5 conference opponents to play the rest of the Big Ten home and home every 4 years with an 8 game set schedule. Then for their 9th conference game, it's 1v2, 3v4, etc.

If conferences want the CCGs to be standout games (rather than cluttered with all the other games), then how about everyone else plays their 12th game Thanksgiving weekend or the 1st weekend of December and the CCGs are played the following weekend either at their neutral site or on campus (if schools in the CCG don't want to lose out on a home game).

(02-21-2022 10:23 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 09:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Thanks for posting this, interesting stuff.

My take is that I have zero interest in hearing conferences talking about doing things for "player safety". First of all, I just don't trust what they say. Second of all, and really more importantly, what conferences say or do is irrelevant because the players themselves will naturally do what is safe for them. Especially the ones headed for the NFL, as they will have advisors and managers and NFL scouts and agents telling them whether playing X number of games is too risky.

Also, as for moving playoff games in northern stadiums, IMO that is a dumbfounding idea. Why on earth would an Ohio State want to play a playoff game anywhere but in Ohio Stadium? That's where they will have the greatest home field advantage. Again, player safety is IMO a meaningless concept, as football players play games outdoors in the snow, rain, etc. at all levels of their career. But if a B1G team is dumb enough to want to do this, sure, why not?

The main issue with several (and maybe even all) Big Ten stadiums is that they’re not winterized. Putting aside player safety, it’s not necessarily safe for spectators. There may be few or no heated areas, particularly bathrooms. The plumbing systems may be designed with the assumption that the water will be drained out for the winter before there are prolonged freezing temps. If there’s snow or, even worse, ice, the stadiums aren’t necessarily set up to remove them in a way that an NFL stadium designed to be used in winter conditions.

Believe me - if Illinois ever somehow made the CFP, I’d personally want a home game in Champaign. However, many Big Ten and other Northern stadiums can’t just assume that they can safely host a mid-December game without making a lot of structural modifications, which obviously costs money that may or not be worth it for the off-chance that your school might host a playoff game one day. It’s something that the schools outside of the North clearly don’t even think twice about.

That's interesting. I mean, it's understandable to me if say LSU's Tiger Stadium isn't "winterized", as winter in Baton Rouge basically means you don't run your AC all the time, just some of the time (I'm in Louisiana right now, and our high temp today is going to be 81).

But B1G stadiums? I know that technically, the football season ends before winter officially hits in late December, but still, it's not uncommon for there to be ice and snow games in the B1G in November, so I've always assumed they are prepared for that.

So that is ... surprising.

(02-22-2022 11:06 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 09:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 08:56 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  The 2nd topic was how devalued CCGs are for the sport (outside of money), getting rid of CCGs...

The bolded is why no one is getting rid of CCGs.

The Big Ten and SEC CCGs are now worth more than their respective tie-ins to the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl. THAT'S how much money they're making and it actually is fairly rational since those CCGs are regularly getting higher ratings than multiple NY6 bowls in the same season.

If the Big Ten is willing to pause the CFP discussion in part to protect the value of the Rose Bowl, you can be d*mn well sure that they're only agreeing to a playoff system that will protect the value of their CCG, too. This is one issue where the Big Ten and SEC are totally on the same page.

So huge no on getting rid of CCGs, but there's still room for discussing about altering the format as opposed to getting rid of it by using conference champions week format. Is sacrificing 1 random conference game overall to keep the CCG a big ask? Since the Big Ten is considering getting rid of divisions, I'll use them as an example.

Yes - it IS a big ask. Just look at how the Big Ten completely tanked the Alliance non-conference scheduling plans due to that "one random conference game" in the past week. It's clear that it's extremely important to the conference and its TV partners. At the same time, why would any league be giving up an actual additional 13th game on top of their regular season schedule? That's an additional week of revenue with a game that they can value separately to the TV networks (as the Big Ten has done in the past), they get to sell corporate sponsorship and suites years in advance in an NFL stadium no matter who is playing (which is why the CCG is at a neutral site)... everything points to the revenue maximization of CCGs as being as it is now.

The word that you used is "sacrifice" and here's the big thing that we should all know by now: "sacrifice" isn't in the vocabulary of anything related to college football business decisions. No one is giving up a conference game that makes more revenue. No conference is giving up the ability to make their CCG into an additional 13th game that makes more revenue. The Big Ten (and SEC and everyone else) isn't going to sacrifice a single dime of the existing system. Whatever the CFP system looks like in the future is going to be 100% purely additive to what we have now or else that CFP system won't get passed in the first place.

(02-22-2022 11:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 10:23 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 09:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Thanks for posting this, interesting stuff.

My take is that I have zero interest in hearing conferences talking about doing things for "player safety". First of all, I just don't trust what they say. Second of all, and really more importantly, what conferences say or do is irrelevant because the players themselves will naturally do what is safe for them. Especially the ones headed for the NFL, as they will have advisors and managers and NFL scouts and agents telling them whether playing X number of games is too risky.

Also, as for moving playoff games in northern stadiums, IMO that is a dumbfounding idea. Why on earth would an Ohio State want to play a playoff game anywhere but in Ohio Stadium? That's where they will have the greatest home field advantage. Again, player safety is IMO a meaningless concept, as football players play games outdoors in the snow, rain, etc. at all levels of their career. But if a B1G team is dumb enough to want to do this, sure, why not?

The main issue with several (and maybe even all) Big Ten stadiums is that they’re not winterized. Putting aside player safety, it’s not necessarily safe for spectators. There may be few or no heated areas, particularly bathrooms. The plumbing systems may be designed with the assumption that the water will be drained out for the winter before there are prolonged freezing temps. If there’s snow or, even worse, ice, the stadiums aren’t necessarily set up to remove them in a way that an NFL stadium designed to be used in winter conditions.

Believe me - if Illinois ever somehow made the CFP, I’d personally want a home game in Champaign. However, many Big Ten and other Northern stadiums can’t just assume that they can safely host a mid-December game without making a lot of structural modifications, which obviously costs money that may or not be worth it for the off-chance that your school might host a playoff game one day. It’s something that the schools outside of the North clearly don’t even think twice about.

That's interesting. I mean, it's understandable to me if say LSU's Tiger Stadium isn't "winterized", as winter in Baton Rouge basically means you don't run your AC all the time, just some of the time (I'm in Louisiana right now, and our high temp today is going to be 81).

But B1G stadiums? I mean I know that technically, the season ends before winter officially hits in late December, but still, it's not uncommon for there to be ice and snow games in the B1G in November.

So that is ... surprising.

And for the Big Ten, not all teams would have to need to move indoors. I can speak for southern Ohio pretty well weather wise. Using Christmas as an example date (even though a playoff game would be before Christmas and not on Christmas), we have had Christmases where it was 50-60 degrees and sunny. We've had it where it was in the teens and snowing. Generally, it's cold with temps in the 30s during the day and get rain/snow mixes when storm systems move through, but it's hard to predict even 2 weeks out what the weather would be exactly for a game because of our wide range of possibilities weather-wise.

(02-22-2022 11:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 10:23 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 09:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Thanks for posting this, interesting stuff.

My take is that I have zero interest in hearing conferences talking about doing things for "player safety". First of all, I just don't trust what they say. Second of all, and really more importantly, what conferences say or do is irrelevant because the players themselves will naturally do what is safe for them. Especially the ones headed for the NFL, as they will have advisors and managers and NFL scouts and agents telling them whether playing X number of games is too risky.

Also, as for moving playoff games in northern stadiums, IMO that is a dumbfounding idea. Why on earth would an Ohio State want to play a playoff game anywhere but in Ohio Stadium? That's where they will have the greatest home field advantage. Again, player safety is IMO a meaningless concept, as football players play games outdoors in the snow, rain, etc. at all levels of their career. But if a B1G team is dumb enough to want to do this, sure, why not?

The main issue with several (and maybe even all) Big Ten stadiums is that they’re not winterized. Putting aside player safety, it’s not necessarily safe for spectators. There may be few or no heated areas, particularly bathrooms. The plumbing systems may be designed with the assumption that the water will be drained out for the winter before there are prolonged freezing temps. If there’s snow or, even worse, ice, the stadiums aren’t necessarily set up to remove them in a way that an NFL stadium designed to be used in winter conditions.

Believe me - if Illinois ever somehow made the CFP, I’d personally want a home game in Champaign. However, many Big Ten and other Northern stadiums can’t just assume that they can safely host a mid-December game without making a lot of structural modifications, which obviously costs money that may or not be worth it for the off-chance that your school might host a playoff game one day. It’s something that the schools outside of the North clearly don’t even think twice about.

That's interesting. I mean, it's understandable to me if say LSU's Tiger Stadium isn't "winterized", as winter in Baton Rouge basically means you don't run your AC all the time, just some of the time (I'm in Louisiana right now, and our high temp today is going to be 81).

But B1G stadiums? I know that technically, the football season ends before winter officially hits in late December, but still, it's not uncommon for there to be ice and snow games in the B1G in November.

So that is ... surprising.

While there can be snow and cold temps in November in the Big Ten region, it's still rare to have substantial snowfall and/or radically subfreezing temps prior to Thanksgiving. That really changes rapidly with each day further that you get into December. It's just a big difference in reasonably foreseeable weather when the last game of the year is the week before or of Thanksgiving versus circa December 15th-20th (which is what is being contemplated under the CFP expansion proposal).

In any event, remember that most of the Big Ten stadiums are older venues, too. They simply aren't built for mid-December/January football games in the same way as a modern NFL stadium.

That's where Gene Smith is coming from. I'm sure that he'd want to host CFP games in December at the Horseshoe if you gave him truth serum, but he knows that Ohio Stadium isn't built for true winter football games as-is.

(02-22-2022 11:58 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 11:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 10:23 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 09:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Thanks for posting this, interesting stuff.

My take is that I have zero interest in hearing conferences talking about doing things for "player safety". First of all, I just don't trust what they say. Second of all, and really more importantly, what conferences say or do is irrelevant because the players themselves will naturally do what is safe for them. Especially the ones headed for the NFL, as they will have advisors and managers and NFL scouts and agents telling them whether playing X number of games is too risky.

Also, as for moving playoff games in northern stadiums, IMO that is a dumbfounding idea. Why on earth would an Ohio State want to play a playoff game anywhere but in Ohio Stadium? That's where they will have the greatest home field advantage. Again, player safety is IMO a meaningless concept, as football players play games outdoors in the snow, rain, etc. at all levels of their career. But if a B1G team is dumb enough to want to do this, sure, why not?

The main issue with several (and maybe even all) Big Ten stadiums is that they’re not winterized. Putting aside player safety, it’s not necessarily safe for spectators. There may be few or no heated areas, particularly bathrooms. The plumbing systems may be designed with the assumption that the water will be drained out for the winter before there are prolonged freezing temps. If there’s snow or, even worse, ice, the stadiums aren’t necessarily set up to remove them in a way that an NFL stadium designed to be used in winter conditions.

Believe me - if Illinois ever somehow made the CFP, I’d personally want a home game in Champaign. However, many Big Ten and other Northern stadiums can’t just assume that they can safely host a mid-December game without making a lot of structural modifications, which obviously costs money that may or not be worth it for the off-chance that your school might host a playoff game one day. It’s something that the schools outside of the North clearly don’t even think twice about.

That's interesting. I mean, it's understandable to me if say LSU's Tiger Stadium isn't "winterized", as winter in Baton Rouge basically means you don't run your AC all the time, just some of the time (I'm in Louisiana right now, and our high temp today is going to be 81).

But B1G stadiums? I mean I know that technically, the season ends before winter officially hits in late December, but still, it's not uncommon for there to be ice and snow games in the B1G in November.

So that is ... surprising.

And for the Big Ten, not all teams would have to need to move indoors. I can speak for southern Ohio pretty well weather wise. Using Christmas as an example date (even though a playoff game would be before Christmas and not on Christmas), we have had Christmases where it was 50-60 degrees and sunny. We've had it where it was in the teens and snowing. Generally, it's cold with temps in the 30s during the day and get rain/snow mixes when storm systems move through, but it's hard to predict even 2 weeks out what the weather would be exactly for a game because of our wide range of possibilities weather-wise.

The point is that when you're dealing with 80,000 to 100,000 ticketholders, you can't take that chance. You also can't wait until the last second to plan for it. Sure, Christmas in Chicago actually got up to 60 degrees two years ago. On the other hand, there was also a Bears Monday Night Football game played on December 3rd when it was zero degrees out (not windchill - ACTUAL temperature). It's totally unpredictable - the LAST thing that I'd want to do in the Midwest is to bank on the best case scenario for weather in December.

How many winter domes are there? STL/MIN/IND/DET. Others?

Last offseason I reasoned the CFP should having 1 pre-designated cold-weather dome each year. By default it would host the 8v9 game, but if #s 5-7 need it, they can opt to play there. You still might need school-by-school emergency contingencies if 2 Northern schools say they can’t host on campus, but having 1 guaranteed Midwest game guarantees strong local logistics.

You’d also want to solicit requests from Top 25 teams two weeks out asking which teams would opt for the dome game. Having this info ahead of time can ease logistics and, shhh, perhaps make for a better bracket.

(02-21-2022 09:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 08:56 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  The 2nd topic was how devalued CCGs are for the sport (outside of money), getting rid of CCGs...

The bolded is why no one is getting rid of CCGs.

The Big Ten and SEC CCGs are now worth more than their respective tie-ins to the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl. THAT'S how much money they're making and it actually is fairly rational since those CCGs are regularly getting higher ratings than multiple NY6 bowls in the same season.

If the Big Ten is willing to pause the CFP discussion in part to protect the value of the Rose Bowl, you can be d*mn well sure that they're only agreeing to a playoff system that will protect the value of their CCG, too. This is one issue where the Big Ten and SEC are totally on the same page.

How do the other P5 CCGs compare?

I figure if the RS Champs of the ACC, Pac-12, and Big 12 join with the top 5 at larges, you get a nice set of games that play-in to QFs. With ND, B1G, and SEC at larges peppered in, the value of these games likely exceeds these P5 conferences’ current CCGs.

They’d keep the TV revenue for their respective 13th games, minus whatever per team payout. The fourth “Wild Card” game would likely be bid out as part of the larger CFP.

I’m not completely adverse to tweaking Conference schedules and making the CCG technically the 9th conference game and then pairing up the rest of the conference with TBD cross-division opponents the same weekend as long as it was a practice that all the P5 leagues are doing.

I think letting cold weather teams move their playoff games to a covered facility in the event of bad weather is a good thing. Some schools like Ohio St and Michigan would definitely prefer to use their larger facility if at all possible but I could see Mich St, Purdue, Indiana, or Minnesota opting to use the closest NFL stadium with a roof afforded the opportunity.