(09-29-2022 08:07 AM)esayem Wrote:  What's great about Thanksgiving weekend is the abundance of football games over the holiday weekend. Changing that to CCG's would be stupid.

Agree. Lots of Thanksgiving traditions across the South.

Big 10 used to mostly finish the week before Thanksgiving, but has moved games to Thanksgiving.

(09-29-2022 09:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 10:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 09:33 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 09:25 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Obviously another thing that must be worked out is the exclusivity of the Army-Navy game and its contract with CBS.

I imagine this game would be moved to an exclusive time slot, perhaps a noon kickoff on the Friday or Saturday of Thanksgiving weekend.

Not really. Nobody who matters cares about protecting the Army-Navy game. CBS has no stroke, Army and NAvy have no stroke.

"The strong do what they will, the weak will suffer what they must"

Really. And so many of you don't seem to understand that game being played on an exclusive weekend is a relatively new phenomena. This isn't some 40-50 year old tradition.

Exactly. And it seems to me that those academies chose to delay their game in order to get that exclusive window. I don't believe anyone with the power to do so guaranteed them exclusivity.

It's not so much that they were guaranteed exclusivity, but rather the rest of FBS did grant Army-Navy a specific exemption to the normal schedule.

Personally, I think it's all water under the bridge. No matter how the schedule falls, the Powers That Be don't want to have playoff games the week after the CCGs, which means Army-Navy can played on the open weekend between those dates.

Another thing about the 1st round campus games is that those dates are smack dab Final exam dates, third Wednesday in December. Just goes to show how much the "student" has fallen. Not sure why they wouldn't do the triple header Saturday. The NFL could be flexible and take Army Navy weekend in prime time, with a bye week the following Saturday. Otherwise, just go head up with a crappy NFL game on Amazon or the Network.

(09-29-2022 10:35 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Another thing about the 1st round campus games is that those dates are smack dab Final exam dates, third Wednesday in December. Just goes to show how much the "student" has fallen. Not sure why they wouldn't do the triple header Saturday. The NFL could be flexible and take Army Navy weekend in prime time, with a bye week the following Saturday. Otherwise, just go head up with a crappy NFL game on Amazon or the Network.

The one assumption that we should have in all of this is that everyone needs to cater to the needs of the NFL as opposed to the other way around. Remember that every network - ESPN, CBS, NBC and FOX - is 100% catering to the NFL lock, stock and barrel over everything else. The NFL is the one encroaching on everyone else's territory - they've already caused MLB to nix World Series games that conflict with NFL Sunday Night Football, they're taking Christmas Day time slots that were long reserved for the NBA, and they're going to start having Black Friday games next season to compete against college football.

Remember that all of the TV networks WANT this from the NFL and are paying billions of dollars for the privilege. The TV networks would take an NFL game every single day of the week if they could. I consider that whatever dates the NFL has taken as absolutely locked in stone and it's more about dealing with the NFL taking even *more* dates beyond the current ones.

(09-29-2022 10:35 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Another thing about the 1st round campus games is that those dates are smack dab Final exam dates, third Wednesday in December. Just goes to show how much the "student" has fallen. Not sure why they wouldn't do the triple header Saturday. The NFL could be flexible

Why should they?

Quote: and take Army Navy weekend in prime time, with a bye week the following Saturday. Otherwise, just go head up with a crappy NFL game on Amazon or the Network.

No, the third Saturday in December now has an ESPN Saturday Night Football game. So ESPN is not going to be showing a college playoff game in prime time that week.

(09-29-2022 07:04 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 10:43 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 01:08 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Ross Dellenger of SI.com checks in:

https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status...ihlNwrAAAA

There is talk in here about placing the quarterfinals at home sites...

I don't know how I feel about that.

I won't take that seriously until that talk is coming from the Big Ten, which is the league with both (a) the most interest in maintaining a bowl relationship with the Rose Bowl and (b) the worst weather conditions for home games in December and January (and I don't mean just bad weather, but meaning several schools have stadiums that literally can't be used in the winter, e.g. not winterized or heated so toilets and faucets will freeze, etc.).

That point (b) is an item that seems to get glossed over by a lot of people. It's easy for people in the SEC to talk about home playoff games because challenges in prepping their stadiums in December and January isn't even a thought in their minds, whereas that's the the forefront of the minds for every Big Ten school outside of now USC and UCLA.

The committee is likely wargaming the issue of stadiums right now. The NCAA has lots of experience getting bids for venues for all kinds of sports. Any FBS school that wants a possibility of hosting a first round game will have to present their plan a year in advance. There will likely be capacity requirements (no general admission and 30K or 40K), permanent press facilities, hotels, and other accommodations. It might be that games will have to played at the lower seed, or maybe neutral stadiums.

Possible schools will be permitted to start selling tickets in mid-November, with the season ticket holders being told that if the stadium is not needed, that they can get a refund or apply the $$$ to next years season tickets, or maybe basektball tickets.

(09-29-2022 10:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 09:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 10:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 09:33 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 09:25 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Obviously another thing that must be worked out is the exclusivity of the Army-Navy game and its contract with CBS.

I imagine this game would be moved to an exclusive time slot, perhaps a noon kickoff on the Friday or Saturday of Thanksgiving weekend.

Not really. Nobody who matters cares about protecting the Army-Navy game. CBS has no stroke, Army and NAvy have no stroke.

"The strong do what they will, the weak will suffer what they must"

Really. And so many of you don't seem to understand that game being played on an exclusive weekend is a relatively new phenomena. This isn't some 40-50 year old tradition.

Exactly. And it seems to me that those academies chose to delay their game in order to get that exclusive window. I don't believe anyone with the power to do so guaranteed them exclusivity.

It's not so much that they were guaranteed exclusivity, but rather the rest of FBS did grant Army-Navy a specific exemption to the normal schedule.

Personally, I think it's all water under the bridge. No matter how the schedule falls, the Powers That Be don't want to have playoff games the week after the CCGs, which means Army-Navy can played on the open weekend between those dates.

To the bold, I do believe the NCAA lists the first 2 Saturdays of December as falling within the regular season. Other conferences merely choose not to utilize them. The Big Ten used to pack it in the weekend before Thanksgiving. I imagine it is weather, generally, that has forced teams to coalesce around CCGs the first weekend of December.

(09-29-2022 11:06 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 07:04 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 10:43 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 01:08 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Ross Dellenger of SI.com checks in:

https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status...ihlNwrAAAA

There is talk in here about placing the quarterfinals at home sites...

I don't know how I feel about that.

I won't take that seriously until that talk is coming from the Big Ten, which is the league with both (a) the most interest in maintaining a bowl relationship with the Rose Bowl and (b) the worst weather conditions for home games in December and January (and I don't mean just bad weather, but meaning several schools have stadiums that literally can't be used in the winter, e.g. not winterized or heated so toilets and faucets will freeze, etc.).

That point (b) is an item that seems to get glossed over by a lot of people. It's easy for people in the SEC to talk about home playoff games because challenges in prepping their stadiums in December and January isn't even a thought in their minds, whereas that's the the forefront of the minds for every Big Ten school outside of now USC and UCLA.

The committee is likely wargaming the issue of stadiums right now. The NCAA has lots of experience getting bids for venues for all kinds of sports. Any FBS school that wants a possibility of hosting a first round game will have to present their plan a year in advance. There will likely be capacity requirements (no general admission and 30K or 40K), permanent press facilities, hotels, and other accommodations. It might be that games will have to played at the lower seed, or maybe neutral stadiums.

Possible schools will be permitted to start selling tickets in mid-November, with the season ticket holders being told that if the stadium is not needed, that they can get a refund or apply the $$$ to next years season tickets, or maybe basektball tickets.

I see what you're saying.

It's just that if we believe that the Big Ten and SEC have outsized power in this process (and I think that's a true statement), it's difficult to see the Big Ten agreeing to a format where realistically they are the ones taking the brunt of all of the negatives of hosting on-campus games or moving games to neutral sites, particularly when they have the Rose Bowl relationship. Georgia isn't realistically ever moving a December playoff game from Athens to Atlanta, so what we're really talking about is Big Ten schools having to move games to neutral sites like Indianapolis, a new indoor Chicago stadium, etc. It's pretty much *only* the Big Ten schools that carry all of the negatives (unless we believe MAC schools are going to host some playoff games), which is why even Gene Smith of Ohio State had concerns about on-campus playoff games (and that's the one school that can get 100,000 people to show up for some warmup practices). That has to be built into the small "p" political side of the playoff format discussions.

(09-29-2022 11:17 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 11:06 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 07:04 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 10:43 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 01:08 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Ross Dellenger of SI.com checks in:

https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status...ihlNwrAAAA

There is talk in here about placing the quarterfinals at home sites...

I don't know how I feel about that.

I won't take that seriously until that talk is coming from the Big Ten, which is the league with both (a) the most interest in maintaining a bowl relationship with the Rose Bowl and (b) the worst weather conditions for home games in December and January (and I don't mean just bad weather, but meaning several schools have stadiums that literally can't be used in the winter, e.g. not winterized or heated so toilets and faucets will freeze, etc.).

That point (b) is an item that seems to get glossed over by a lot of people. It's easy for people in the SEC to talk about home playoff games because challenges in prepping their stadiums in December and January isn't even a thought in their minds, whereas that's the the forefront of the minds for every Big Ten school outside of now USC and UCLA.

The committee is likely wargaming the issue of stadiums right now. The NCAA has lots of experience getting bids for venues for all kinds of sports. Any FBS school that wants a possibility of hosting a first round game will have to present their plan a year in advance. There will likely be capacity requirements (no general admission and 30K or 40K), permanent press facilities, hotels, and other accommodations. It might be that games will have to played at the lower seed, or maybe neutral stadiums.

Possible schools will be permitted to start selling tickets in mid-November, with the season ticket holders being told that if the stadium is not needed, that they can get a refund or apply the $$$ to next years season tickets, or maybe basektball tickets.

I see what you're saying.

It's just that if we believe that the Big Ten and SEC have outsized power in this process (and I think that's a true statement), it's difficult to see the Big Ten agreeing to a format where realistically they are the ones taking the brunt of all of the negatives of hosting on-campus games or moving games to neutral sites, particularly when they have the Rose Bowl relationship. Georgia isn't realistically ever moving a December playoff game from Athens to Atlanta, so what we're really talking about is Big Ten schools having to move games to neutral sites like Indianapolis, a new indoor Chicago stadium, etc. It's pretty much *only* the Big Ten schools that carry all of the negatives (unless we believe MAC schools are going to host some playoff games), which is why even Gene Smith of Ohio State had concerns about on-campus playoff games (and that's the one school that can get 100,000 people to show up for some warmup practices). That has to be built into the small "p" political side of the playoff format discussions.

The argument for having home playoff games had more to do with trying to force fans to travel to a neutral site more than anything else.

However it would probably be alright because as playoff bowls they would have year round marketing and the ability to have good local support to make up for the traveling fan issue.

I also think the situation isn't like 1990 where most people would travel only one time for a holiday FB weekend and that is it. Today a lot of the fans would be comfortable hopping on an airplane a couple weeks in a row if it meant seeing their favorite team play.

I’ve said before that they should pre-designate 1 cold-weather dome in the Midwest for a play-in. Hotels can be blocked out a year in advance, you’d give cold-weather “hosts” dibs on playing here if they’d like. If all the play-in hosts are warm-weather, you stick the 8v9 game here.

(09-29-2022 11:17 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 11:06 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 07:04 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 10:43 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 01:08 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Ross Dellenger of SI.com checks in:

https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status...ihlNwrAAAA

There is talk in here about placing the quarterfinals at home sites...

I don't know how I feel about that.

I won't take that seriously until that talk is coming from the Big Ten, which is the league with both (a) the most interest in maintaining a bowl relationship with the Rose Bowl and (b) the worst weather conditions for home games in December and January (and I don't mean just bad weather, but meaning several schools have stadiums that literally can't be used in the winter, e.g. not winterized or heated so toilets and faucets will freeze, etc.).

That point (b) is an item that seems to get glossed over by a lot of people. It's easy for people in the SEC to talk about home playoff games because challenges in prepping their stadiums in December and January isn't even a thought in their minds, whereas that's the the forefront of the minds for every Big Ten school outside of now USC and UCLA.

The committee is likely wargaming the issue of stadiums right now. The NCAA has lots of experience getting bids for venues for all kinds of sports. Any FBS school that wants a possibility of hosting a first round game will have to present their plan a year in advance. There will likely be capacity requirements (no general admission and 30K or 40K), permanent press facilities, hotels, and other accommodations. It might be that games will have to played at the lower seed, or maybe neutral stadiums.

Possible schools will be permitted to start selling tickets in mid-November, with the season ticket holders being told that if the stadium is not needed, that they can get a refund or apply the $$$ to next years season tickets, or maybe basektball tickets.

I see what you're saying.

It's just that if we believe that the Big Ten and SEC have outsized power in this process (and I think that's a true statement), it's difficult to see the Big Ten agreeing to a format where realistically they are the ones taking the brunt of all of the negatives of hosting on-campus games or moving games to neutral sites, particularly when they have the Rose Bowl relationship. Georgia isn't realistically ever moving a December playoff game from Athens to Atlanta, so what we're really talking about is Big Ten schools having to move games to neutral sites like Indianapolis, a new indoor Chicago stadium, etc. It's pretty much *only* the Big Ten schools that carry all of the negatives (unless we believe MAC schools are going to host some playoff games), which is why even Gene Smith of Ohio State had concerns about on-campus playoff games (and that's the one school that can get 100,000 people to show up for some warmup practices). That has to be built into the small "p" political side of the playoff format discussions.

Any FBS school is potentially a host for the first round. So let each school designate where they would host (just in case). Ball State might use Lucas Stadium (subject to agreement from the Colts or whoever owns the stadium). If Purdue and Indiana also bought in, Lucas might be even more willing.

I'd guess that Michigan and Ohio State would do anything short of $100 million to winterize their stadiums.

If Appalachian State had to choose between playing a game on the road when they were #6 in the country, and hosting in Charlotte, what would they choose?

(09-28-2022 09:01 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 08:39 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 07:49 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Sounds like they are really pushing to open the season early and have 2 December playoff rounds.

It doesn’t sound like that at at all. No one outside of message board land has seriously talked about two December playoff rounds. Remember that the exact same NFL conflict problems arise the week of Christmas because they’ve taken the Saturday nearest that date, too. TV ratings are higher in January (meaning the TV networks will pay more), so this playoff was always going to be an extension further into January.

From the linked article:

Quote:Hancock said the commissioners continued to discuss the possibility of moving the entire season to Week 0 to accommodate an expanded field, but there are still questions about the feasibility of implementing such a sweeping change so quickly. An earlier start would move the conference championship games to Thanksgiving weekend.

I can't imagine they're going to go through the trouble of moving Rivalry Week and conference championship games if they aren't planning on multiple playoff rounds in December.

Reread the quoted text. It is saying right there that somebody is pushing the possibility of moving the entire season to Week 0 and somebody else is pushing back against that idea.

The pretext of the pushback may be the feasibility of doing such a sweeping change so quickly ... but if the pushback wins the day, it wins the day, no matter what its pretext was.

_________________

(09-28-2022 09:39 AM)Crayton Wrote:  You wouldn't have the SECCG played on the same weekend as playoffs; nor would you have playoff games on separate weeks. It'd be something like:

Thanksgiving: Keep most of the big rivalry games // Mid+Lower conferences' games consolidated to single Championship Games
1st December: CCGs for ACC & SEC & B1G; maybe move Army-Navy here too.
2nd December: 4 first round games, none of which are hosted by teams who played last week
3rd/4th December: 4 quarterfinals
New Years: 2 semifinals

Th playoff itself would be near identical to the proposed. The exception would be teams like Georgia who lost the SECCG and would then have to play a playoff game on the road. ...

This kind of system is not on the table: it lies outside the frame given to the Commissioners by the Board.

Taking these kinds of modifications off of the table to make the negotiations by the commissioners more tractable was the point of the Board vote.

(09-29-2022 08:15 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 11:17 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 11:06 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 07:04 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 10:43 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  There is talk in here about placing the quarterfinals at home sites...

I don't know how I feel about that.

I won't take that seriously until that talk is coming from the Big Ten, which is the league with both (a) the most interest in maintaining a bowl relationship with the Rose Bowl and (b) the worst weather conditions for home games in December and January (and I don't mean just bad weather, but meaning several schools have stadiums that literally can't be used in the winter, e.g. not winterized or heated so toilets and faucets will freeze, etc.).

That point (b) is an item that seems to get glossed over by a lot of people. It's easy for people in the SEC to talk about home playoff games because challenges in prepping their stadiums in December and January isn't even a thought in their minds, whereas that's the the forefront of the minds for every Big Ten school outside of now USC and UCLA.

The committee is likely wargaming the issue of stadiums right now. The NCAA has lots of experience getting bids for venues for all kinds of sports. Any FBS school that wants a possibility of hosting a first round game will have to present their plan a year in advance. There will likely be capacity requirements (no general admission and 30K or 40K), permanent press facilities, hotels, and other accommodations. It might be that games will have to played at the lower seed, or maybe neutral stadiums.

Possible schools will be permitted to start selling tickets in mid-November, with the season ticket holders being told that if the stadium is not needed, that they can get a refund or apply the $$$ to next years season tickets, or maybe basektball tickets.

I see what you're saying.

It's just that if we believe that the Big Ten and SEC have outsized power in this process (and I think that's a true statement), it's difficult to see the Big Ten agreeing to a format where realistically they are the ones taking the brunt of all of the negatives of hosting on-campus games or moving games to neutral sites, particularly when they have the Rose Bowl relationship. Georgia isn't realistically ever moving a December playoff game from Athens to Atlanta, so what we're really talking about is Big Ten schools having to move games to neutral sites like Indianapolis, a new indoor Chicago stadium, etc. It's pretty much *only* the Big Ten schools that carry all of the negatives (unless we believe MAC schools are going to host some playoff games), which is why even Gene Smith of Ohio State had concerns about on-campus playoff games (and that's the one school that can get 100,000 people to show up for some warmup practices). That has to be built into the small "p" political side of the playoff format discussions.

Any FBS school is potentially a host for the first round. So let each school designate where they would host (just in case). Ball State might use Lucas Stadium (subject to agreement from the Colts or whoever owns the stadium). If Purdue and Indiana also bought in, Lucas might be even more willing.

I'd guess that Michigan and Ohio State would do anything short of $100 million to winterize their stadiums.

If Appalachian State had to choose between playing a game on the road when they were #6 in the country, and hosting in Charlotte, what would they choose?

You're missing my point. When people say, "A school can use a neutral site if they want," what they're really saying is, "The Big Ten can use a neutral site if they want while all of the rest of us in the South get our rabid massive home field advantage." That puts the Big Ten at an inherent disadvantage in the playoff system and the Big Ten isn't going through its march gobbling up all of the college sports media revenue out there in order to sign up to be put at a disadvantage.

(09-30-2022 01:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 08:15 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 11:17 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 11:06 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 07:04 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I won't take that seriously until that talk is coming from the Big Ten, which is the league with both (a) the most interest in maintaining a bowl relationship with the Rose Bowl and (b) the worst weather conditions for home games in December and January (and I don't mean just bad weather, but meaning several schools have stadiums that literally can't be used in the winter, e.g. not winterized or heated so toilets and faucets will freeze, etc.).

That point (b) is an item that seems to get glossed over by a lot of people. It's easy for people in the SEC to talk about home playoff games because challenges in prepping their stadiums in December and January isn't even a thought in their minds, whereas that's the the forefront of the minds for every Big Ten school outside of now USC and UCLA.

The committee is likely wargaming the issue of stadiums right now. The NCAA has lots of experience getting bids for venues for all kinds of sports. Any FBS school that wants a possibility of hosting a first round game will have to present their plan a year in advance. There will likely be capacity requirements (no general admission and 30K or 40K), permanent press facilities, hotels, and other accommodations. It might be that games will have to played at the lower seed, or maybe neutral stadiums.

Possible schools will be permitted to start selling tickets in mid-November, with the season ticket holders being told that if the stadium is not needed, that they can get a refund or apply the $$$ to next years season tickets, or maybe basektball tickets.

I see what you're saying.

It's just that if we believe that the Big Ten and SEC have outsized power in this process (and I think that's a true statement), it's difficult to see the Big Ten agreeing to a format where realistically they are the ones taking the brunt of all of the negatives of hosting on-campus games or moving games to neutral sites, particularly when they have the Rose Bowl relationship. Georgia isn't realistically ever moving a December playoff game from Athens to Atlanta, so what we're really talking about is Big Ten schools having to move games to neutral sites like Indianapolis, a new indoor Chicago stadium, etc. It's pretty much *only* the Big Ten schools that carry all of the negatives (unless we believe MAC schools are going to host some playoff games), which is why even Gene Smith of Ohio State had concerns about on-campus playoff games (and that's the one school that can get 100,000 people to show up for some warmup practices). That has to be built into the small "p" political side of the playoff format discussions.

Any FBS school is potentially a host for the first round. So let each school designate where they would host (just in case). Ball State might use Lucas Stadium (subject to agreement from the Colts or whoever owns the stadium). If Purdue and Indiana also bought in, Lucas might be even more willing.

I'd guess that Michigan and Ohio State would do anything short of $100 million to winterize their stadiums.

If Appalachian State had to choose between playing a game on the road when they were #6 in the country, and hosting in Charlotte, what would they choose?

You're missing my point. When people say, "A school can use a neutral site if they want," what they're really saying is, "The Big Ten can use a neutral site if they want while all of the rest of us in the South get our rabid massive home field advantage." That puts the Big Ten at an inherent disadvantage in the playoff system and the Big Ten isn't going through its march gobbling up all of the college sports media revenue out there in order to sign up to be put at a disadvantage.

I agree with your assessment of the balance-of-power, but the reality is that issues like this one--the general format of the playoff--were settled a few weeks ago by the college presidents who told the commissioners to take the 6+6 blueprint and make it work.

So that means the Big Ten has pretty much agreed to on-campus sites for the December first-round games, or possibly short-trips to NFL stadiums. (no idea what Iowa or Nebraska would do).

With a billion dollars a year in TV money coming in, I think the plan is to winterize the stadium bathrooms.

EDIT: I just looked back, this was in reference to quarterfinals at on-campus sites, as well as the first round. But we're still talking about December games, so I'm not sure it moves the needle much. Columbus, Ann Arbor, Madison, Lansing and State College should start getting their upgrade plans together. Everyone else can take a more relaxed attitude, given their chances of finishing #5-8 in the CFP seeding.

(09-28-2022 09:54 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  ....
Getting two out of four ANY year is already a great accomplishment. Getting two teams in the BCS was much more impressive.

Then congratulations on getting an SEC notebook sticker for your twelfth birthday last week. You must be beaming.

Now: back to the topic.

The topic is playoff structure. Structures are determined by an agreed-upon policy. The principle underlying policies of this sort is impartiality. Participants earn their way into benefits—home field advantage, opportunity to play again next week—based on their performance on the field.

(09-29-2022 08:23 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 07:49 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 07:22 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 07:15 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Maybe Friday and Saturday 12:00pm ET campus semifinals with Indy hosting B1G high seed leading into NFL wild card games. Horrible weather and all. SEC wouldn't be bad but you have Jerry World and Lucas Oil. If the Colts are hosting a game, that goes to Sunday.

The thing is that if you're going to have neutral sites, then you might as well maximize the value of those neutral sites by auctioning them off to the highest bidder, selling sponsorships, selling high value suites and luxury boxes, securing hotel rooms and packages and other factors that can be done years ahead of time and locks in revenue regardless of who is playing.

I don't know Frank, if they are willing to lead into NFL playoffs and they don't want to play off campus midweek, Friday prime time and Big noon (a total of 8 playoff games that single weekend including MNF), are the only logical SF dates. You just have to reserve Indianapolis and Atlanta. Those are driveable games for the core contingents of the P2. I don't think it should be bid out so far in advance. Campus sites for warm weather schools avoids the logistical nightmares entirely. Then you get the NCG on Championship weekend where it can be an event again without the weeknight TV miniseries feel it's had for decades.

Logistics aren't just about the stadiums, though.

It's about securing several hundred hotel rooms for multiple nights to accommodate the teams and their traveling parties (not even counting the TV network people, media, etc.). That's a challenge on short notice even for the largest markets like NYC, LA and Chicago, much less a smaller city like Indianapolis, and MUCH less a true college town like Tuscaloosa. There's a reason why so many non-conference college football games are scheduled so many years in advance: it truly does take a *ton* of time to set up a traveling party to stay in a college town for a regular season game, much less a playoff game. On the flip side, stadiums aren't going to block off a date and hotels aren't going to block off rooms for several days for a hypothetical playoff game that may or may not be held in their market unless they're getting non-refundable deposits. Having to do that in multiple markets to cover different hypothetical playoff matchups starts turning into a lot of wasted money.

My daughter goes to a swim meet in Indianapolis every January (which might even be the week that the semifinals may fall on in the future) that's held at the IU Natatorium on the IUPUI campus. This event has a fraction of the attendance of a Colts game or the Big Ten Championship Game, but every single hotel room within 30 miles of Indianapolis is filled up and the hotel rooms in downtown Indy (near Lucas Oil Stadium) have jacked up rates and need to be reserved 9 months-plus in advance. And this is a real pro sports city with a fair number of hotel rooms! I can't imagine if you switched this event to a smaller college town and had only a week or two to plan for it.

These are the larger picture logistical items that a lot of people aren't taking into account. Fans always want flexibility - they want to be able to put a particular matchup in the perfect venue to maximize attendance at the perfect time. However, that ultimately comes into a collision course with reality. A few years ago, I read just how many different plans MLB had to come up with months in advance to cover any reasonably possible playoff scenario simply so that there were enough hotel rooms for the teams and media... and once again, this is with much smaller traveling parties going to major cities that actually *have* a fair number of hotels. It's super daunting.

As a result, there's no reason to actively take that type of daunting task if you're going to have neutral sites anyway. Just look at how much consternation there is about moving the 2024 National Championship Game back only a week for Atlanta (and that's one of the easiest and most flexible markets out there when it comes to scheduling major events). There's a lot of value in simply booking a place years ahead of time, securing all of the hotel rooms, and then not worry about it. It makes both logistical sense for planning and financial sense because you can deal with only one set of stadium and hotel contracts as opposed to a lot of contingent agreements and expenses. This is especially the case for any event where most of the attendees are coming from out of town (which is the case in college football even for on-campus games).

Frank, you might be right. But The Powers That Be very clearly do not care.

(09-30-2022 02:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  ...

(09-29-2022 07:15 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Maybe Friday and Saturday 12:00pm ET campus semifinals with Indy hosting B1G high seed leading into NFL wild card games. Horrible weather and all. SEC wouldn't be bad but you have Jerry World and Lucas Oil. If the Colts are hosting a game, that goes to Sunday.

...

Frank, you might be right. But The Powers That Be very clearly do not care.

In what sense do you say that?

Frank the Tank is discussing some of the logistical downsides to an option that was ruled out by the Board when they went with Bowls hosting semi-finals.

Bowls hosting the Semi-Final means the traveling party spots can be blocked out, independent of the identity of the traveling parties involved.

What is the evidence to support saying "the powers that be don't care" about a challenge facing one option, when that is one of the options that the Powers That Be have, in fact, taken off the table?

(09-30-2022 02:31 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-30-2022 02:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  ...

(09-29-2022 07:15 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Maybe Friday and Saturday 12:00pm ET campus semifinals with Indy hosting B1G high seed leading into NFL wild card games. Horrible weather and all. SEC wouldn't be bad but you have Jerry World and Lucas Oil. If the Colts are hosting a game, that goes to Sunday.

...

Frank, you might be right. But The Powers That Be very clearly do not care.

In what sense do you say that?

Frank the Tank is discussing some of the logistical downsides to an option that was ruled out by the Board when they went with Bowls hosting semi-finals.

Bowls hosting the Semi-Final means the traveling party spots can be blocked out, independent of the identity of the traveling parties involved.

What is the evidence to support saying "the powers that be don't care" about a challenge facing one option, when that is one of the options that the Powers That Be have, in fact, taken off the table?

1. We're talking about games up north in December - January. First round, quarterfinal, whatever

2. We're talking about on campus games on two weeks notice.

Those two things are in the Working Group model that the President's adopted. There are going to be games in Ann Arbor or Columbus or State College in mid December. Mid January isn't that different. It's winter. The Big Ten has already agreed.

And everyone has agreed to on campus playoff games.

(09-30-2022 02:31 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-30-2022 02:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  ...

(09-29-2022 07:15 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Maybe Friday and Saturday 12:00pm ET campus semifinals with Indy hosting B1G high seed leading into NFL wild card games. Horrible weather and all. SEC wouldn't be bad but you have Jerry World and Lucas Oil. If the Colts are hosting a game, that goes to Sunday.

...

Frank, you might be right. But The Powers That Be very clearly do not care.

In what sense do you say that?

Frank the Tank is discussing some of the logistical downsides to an option that was ruled out by the Board when they went with Bowls hosting semi-finals.

Bowls hosting the Semi-Final means the traveling party spots can be blocked out, independent of the identity of the traveling parties involved.

What is the evidence to support saying "the powers that be don't care" about a challenge facing one option, when that is one of the options that the Powers That Be have, in fact, taken off the table?

Right - I'm actually reflecting the decision of the Powers That Be. They want to use neutral sites (the bowls) for the quarterfinals and semifinals and my reasoning supports why they'd want it.

This wasn't about the first round games, which I agree have always been slated to be played on-campus.

I actually understand the thought and desire of playing all playoff games on-campus (even though I don't think that's going to happen). If you're going to go to a flexible model, then you might as well go all the way with it.

What I push back on is a halfway in-between model of having variable neutral sites that aren't decided on until a week or two before. That creates a lot of unnecessary time and expense for not very much upside. If you're going to play a round of games at neutral sites, just book it 5 years ahead of time and lock it in place as opposed to leaving it up in the air until a week or two before. If you want flexibility, then you might as well just have on-campus games.

(09-30-2022 03:15 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-30-2022 02:31 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-30-2022 02:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  ...

(09-29-2022 07:15 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Maybe Friday and Saturday 12:00pm ET campus semifinals with Indy hosting B1G high seed leading into NFL wild card games. Horrible weather and all. SEC wouldn't be bad but you have Jerry World and Lucas Oil. If the Colts are hosting a game, that goes to Sunday.

...

Frank, you might be right. But The Powers That Be very clearly do not care.

In what sense do you say that?

Frank the Tank is discussing some of the logistical downsides to an option that was ruled out by the Board when they went with Bowls hosting semi-finals.

Bowls hosting the Semi-Final means the traveling party spots can be blocked out, independent of the identity of the traveling parties involved.

What is the evidence to support saying "the powers that be don't care" about a challenge facing one option, when that is one of the options that the Powers That Be have, in fact, taken off the table?

1. We're talking about games up north in December - January. First round, quarterfinal, whatever

2. We're talking about on campus games on two weeks notice.

Those two things are in the Working Group model that the President's adopted. There are going to be games in Ann Arbor or Columbus or State College in mid December. Mid January isn't that different. It's winter. The Big Ten has already agreed.

And everyone has agreed to on campus playoff games.

Clearly some people have been talking about the pros and cons of options that it has been agreed to exclude ... that discussion thread was an example of that, since it springs off of the suggestion of On-Campus semi-finals.

"Mid-January isn't that different" means that the Big Ten are agreeing to this applying to the Big Ten champion. A conference that is not entirely happy that the Big Ten championship doesn't necessarily mean a trip to sunny LA ... is suppose to accept the Big Ten championship meaning a mid-January game in Columbus or Ann Arbor or Happy Valley or Madison in the best case where the champion advances to the Semi-Finals?

No, not only is that off the table now, it's going to stay off the table.

On a side note, "Mid-January isn't that different" doesn't fit my experience regarding weather, either. I have seen Bengals mid-January NFL playoff games played in below zero conditions, and Columbus would often be a touch colder than Cincinnati, and Ann Arbor a touch colder than Columbus.