(12-01-2022 10:55 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-01-2022 10:03 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  This expansion is pretty different than the last one. The transition from BCS to CFP was largely motivated by the BCS Busters and hatred of the computer rankings.

There was some lingering bitterness over computer ranking foulups in the first half of the BCS lifetime, but they had worked out the kinks and the last 5 or 6 years of the BCS were relatively well recieved. (People were mad about an all-SEC NCG matchup, but not because they thought LSU and Alabama weren't the two best teams)

Some G5 fans were mad that TCU and Boise STate got kind of hosed, but they expanded the playoff from 2 to 4 because of the huge demand for an expanded playoff.

There are ligit claims to that because you had TCU, Utah, Boise State, Tulane and others that wound up top 4, but did not played for the championship. TCU, Boise State, Tulane, Utah showed they can win their games. Hawaii lost their bowl game because Georgia players purposely injured Colt Brennan out of the game, and Hawaii was never the same without him.

UCF would have hosed Alabama the year that Bama won the title. Why? Bama lost to Auburn and UCF beat Auburn in the bowl game. That was the year they claimed the title, and they should be crowned the NC that year, not Bama.

Starting in 2026, I hope that only NYD games are associated with bowls. If NYD is locked for quarterfinals, then only four bowls are needed. The relationship with bowls no longer helps grow the value of the playoffs.

(11-30-2022 11:34 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-30-2022 09:57 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(11-30-2022 09:55 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I am one of the few very sad to see this. I know the advantages, but loved the extreme high stakes throughout the year. Something will be lost here people won't realize for years.

I abhor the 12 team playoff, too. There’s never been a single year in CFB history where 12 teams are playoff caliber.


But if we’re going to have a 12 team playoff, I’m tired of all the demands the Rose Bowl kept making.

I don't mind the Rose making demands, and I understand their position, I just think the CFP makes more sense without the bowls involved at all.

I agree. They are leeches and don't really add anything anymore. Its a different world where people travel a lot more. Flying was not something people did a lot in the 70s and prior.

(12-01-2022 12:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-01-2022 11:48 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  The RB is literally giving away all the characteristics that made it unique (its contract status/tie-ins and its disconnection from the other NY6 Bowls). If they agreed to this for two years, I can't see them negotiating anything more for themselves in 26' and beyond. It's just wishful thinking if they believe they will get a stand alone consolation game in that TV window.

I think this just kicks the can down the road two years. The parties to the contract (10 conferences, Notre Dame, 6 bowls) will no longer have "holdout leverage" just because they can block change.

If the Big Ten supports the Rose Bowl, then that will be reflected in the new system. If the Big Ten doesn;t support the Rose Bowl, then the Rose Bowl is finished.

I agree on this point. It all comes down to whether the Rose Bowl is getting backed by the Big Ten and Pac-12 or not. So, I still think that makes their position different in 2026 compared to the other bowls (where the SEC and other leagues clearly don't care about their bowl relationships with respect to the playoffs at this point).

(12-01-2022 03:19 AM)Schema Wrote:  Here is an idea I was thinking of for the next CFP contract to allow the Rose Bowl Game to have their desired timeslot each year and feature the B1G or PAC champion.

The contract will be for six years.

The Rose Bowl Game will be a permanent quarterfinal site and will be played around 5:00 PM Eastern on NYD.
The Sugar Bowl and Orange Bowl will rotate with one another as quarterfinal and semifinal sites every other year and will be played at 8:30 PM Eastern on NYD when a quarterfinal site.
The Peach Bowl, Cotton Bowl, and Fiesta Bowl will rotate as the remaining quarterfinal and semifinal sites.

If selected as a top four seed, the higher ranked champion from the either the B1G or PAC will play in the Rose Bowl Game.
If selected as a top four seed, the champion of the SEC will play in the Sugar Bowl in years that it is a quarterfinal site.
If selected as a top four seed, the champion of the ACC will play in the Orange Bowl in years that it is a quarterfinal site.

Example Rotation:

2026-2027: Quarters = Rose, Orange, Cotton, Peach - Semis = Sugar, Fiesta
2027-2028: Quarters = Rose, Sugar, Peach, Fiesta - Semis = Orange, Cotton
2028-2029: Quarters = Rose, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton - Semis = Sugar, Peach
2029-2030: Quarters = Rose, Sugar, Cotton, Peach - Semis = Orange, Fiesta
2030-2031: Quarters = Rose, Orange, Peach, Fiesta - Semis = Sugar, Cotton
2031-2032: Quarters = Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Cotton - Semis = Orange, Peach

Rose Bowl Game = 6 quarterfinals.
Sugar Bowl and Orange Bowl = 3 quarterfinals and 3 semifinals.
Peach Bowl, Cotton Bowl, and Fiesta Bowl = 4 quarterfinals and 2 semifinals.

I don't think they will do that, but 6 years makes sense and the Rose as a permanent quarter and Fiesta as permanent semi make sense. With the distribution of schools, it doesn't make sense to have both as semis or really even both as quarters in the same year. Rose keeps its time slot and Fiesta is a good January site (Dallas and Atlanta really aren't). Fiesta sacrifices the long NY weekend, but gets a semi-final every year.

(12-01-2022 12:21 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I am just happy for six at large bids so that ND's independence is secured.

The rest of it are just details to me. Not as important as the first sentence above.

That's really the last issue controlling their viability as an independent. NIL, recruiting, exposure. Those are the things that eventually drove Texas and OU to the SEC.

(12-01-2022 09:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  Regardless of people’s opinions on competitiveness, any playoff format incorporating auto-bids for conference champs is more legitimate because of the addition of an actual metric: winning a conference championship. We will get six teams that earned a bid by winning something on the field.

A four team playoff was always a stop gap and not built to last. I’m glad it’s going the way of the BCS title game.

I hope the bowl games remain incorporated and NYD is once again the best day in college football, but now featuring three or four quarterfinals.

I don’t think this has any bearing on conference expansion.

Agree. It limits the power of those in the smoke filled room.

And the four team playoff was a disaster for the competitive structure. The teams in the playoff got a huge advantage in recruiting. ADs have made that comment. It was a big unintended side effect, much to the advantage of Saban and Dabo.

(12-01-2022 09:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2022 09:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  Regardless of people’s opinions on competitiveness, any playoff format incorporating auto-bids for conference champs is more legitimate because of the addition of an actual metric: winning a conference championship. We will get six teams that earned a bid by winning something on the field.

A four team playoff was always a stop gap and not built to last. I’m glad it’s going the way of the BCS title game.

I hope the bowl games remain incorporated and NYD is once again the best day in college football, but now featuring three or four quarterfinals.

I don’t think this has any bearing on conference expansion.

To me, that logic only holds if the metric is a good one, and IMO conference champs is not a good metric.

For example, if team X wins the MWC, well, that just means they proved to be better than the other teams in the MWC. Doesn't tell us anything about how good they are compared to teams in any other conferences. Heck, we could have team X, a team that is 8-4, with 4 OOC losses but conference champs, get in over team Y, a 10-2 team that played a much tougher schedule and won more games in another conference but isn't their conference champ. That doesn't resonate with me.

So IMO, winning a conference should not be an automatic ticket to the playoffs, not in a sport like CFB where the playoffs are so small. For hoops, where they have 72 spots or whatever, then it IMO does no harm to give all conference champs an autobid.

The sample size of ooc games is small, so a concrete metric is far better than the eyeball test used now. The "consensus" about the best team has very frequently been proven wrong on the field.

(12-01-2022 11:02 AM)NotoriousOne Wrote:  

(11-30-2022 10:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-30-2022 09:55 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I am one of the few very sad to see this. I know the advantages, but loved the extreme high stakes throughout the year. Something will be lost here people won't realize for years.

This was only a matter of whether it was starting in 2024 or 2026.

In any event, I think the 12-team playoff is going to be amazing (and I say that as a general Rose Bowl defender). Once again, the fact that so many *more* games and *more* teams have actual stakes is the biggest benefit of CFP expansion.

One of the few times I respectfully disagree with you Frank. There are rarely any years when there are twelve teams worthy of a playoff in college football and, as Ohio1317 said, we are lessening the stakes of the regular season. The Game will suffer if OSU and Michigan know they are both in by Thanksgiving just as much as if they meet a month later for a rematch. I'm fine with expansion but with guardrails to protect the regular season...

As Frank says, its the smallest % of teams in the playoff of any sport. It is far from the level where it dampens interest in the regular season. Basketball, which everyone seems to love the tourney, does seriously dampen interest. It is 68 of 350, nearly 20%, and they are talking about more. It about 50% of the power conference teams. I remember back before the massive expansion of the NCAA.

This is 12 of 134, or about 9% and 11/69 or less than 1/6th of the power conference teams.

There is a point where it lowers the value of the regular season. 24 or 32 definitely would. But 12 is not it. There won't be 4 loss teams (unless they win a ccg) and few 3 loss teams, many years, none.

(12-01-2022 12:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-01-2022 09:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2022 09:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  Regardless of people’s opinions on competitiveness, any playoff format incorporating auto-bids for conference champs is more legitimate because of the addition of an actual metric: winning a conference championship. We will get six teams that earned a bid by winning something on the field.

A four team playoff was always a stop gap and not built to last. I’m glad it’s going the way of the BCS title game.

I hope the bowl games remain incorporated and NYD is once again the best day in college football, but now featuring three or four quarterfinals.

I don’t think this has any bearing on conference expansion.

To me, that logic only holds if the metric is a good one, and IMO conference champs is not a good metric.

For example, if team X wins the MWC, well, that just means they proved to be better than the other teams in the MWC. Doesn't tell us anything about how good they are compared to teams in any other conferences. Heck, we could have team X, a team that is 8-4, with 4 OOC losses but conference champs, get in over team Y, a 10-2 team that played a much tougher schedule and won more games in another conference but isn't their conference champ. That doesn't resonate with me.

So IMO, winning a conference should not be an automatic ticket to the playoffs, not in a sport like CFB where the playoffs are so small. For hoops, where they have 72 spots or whatever, then it IMO does no harm to give all conference champs an autobid.

The sample size of ooc games is small, so a concrete metric is far better than the eyeball test used now. The "consensus" about the best team has very frequently been proven wrong on the field.

Yeah - I've never understood the opposition to auto-bids for conference champs. It's even odder for this particular forum where conference realignment means everything... but then winning that conference is suddenly is supposed to mean *nothing* for the playoff.

Even now, it's still not *all* conference champs getting an auto-bid, but rather the top 6 (meaning that there's still an element of subjectivity applied).

Plus, there are still 6 spots for at-large bids where the committee can apply all of the completely subjective criteria that they want.

To be sure, I never agreed with the notion that all playoff participants *had* to be conference champs, either, as there can certainly be 2nd/3rd place teams from a league or independents like Notre Dame that should reasonably be included in a playoff.

So, there's a balance here that I think is correct: 50% of the field is objective conference champs and 50% of the field consists of subjective at-large bids. The "all or nothing" approaches from both sides (all at-larges or all conference champs) would make the playoff worse.

(12-01-2022 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think this deal shows that the Rose Bowl really was probably "going it alone" in these talks, at least for years 24/25, meaning it didn't have backing from the PAC or B1G, at least not to the level of those conferences (and let's face it, the B1G is the only one of the two that mattered) being willing to spike a deal to stand up for the Rose Bowl's demands. And without B1G support at that level, the RB had no choice but to acquiesce or fade out of existence once the new playoff system is adopted. But maybe I'm wrong and they will have that support in the 2026 deal.

Also, while I would prefer that we stay at the current four-team CFP, I am sure I will watch and enjoy the 12-team playoff.

It feels to me at the end the Rose Bowl was being a road block simply to try and guarantee future concessions. For 24 and 25 they get exactly what they say they want, a NYD game in their timeslot

(12-01-2022 12:42 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-01-2022 12:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-01-2022 11:48 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  The RB is literally giving away all the characteristics that made it unique (its contract status/tie-ins and its disconnection from the other NY6 Bowls). If they agreed to this for two years, I can't see them negotiating anything more for themselves in 26' and beyond. It's just wishful thinking if they believe they will get a stand alone consolation game in that TV window.

I think this just kicks the can down the road two years. The parties to the contract (10 conferences, Notre Dame, 6 bowls) will no longer have "holdout leverage" just because they can block change.

If the Big Ten supports the Rose Bowl, then that will be reflected in the new system. If the Big Ten doesn;t support the Rose Bowl, then the Rose Bowl is finished.

I agree on this point. It all comes down to whether the Rose Bowl is getting backed by the Big Ten and Pac-12 or not. So, I still think that makes their position different in 2026 compared to the other bowls (where the SEC and other leagues clearly don't care about their bowl relationships with respect to the playoffs at this point).

There are a few options...

1. Schedule Pac10 vs B1G QF, regardless of seeding, into that slot. If no Pac10 or B1G team remains, follow seeding with a bias towards closest regional teams.

2. Send either the B1G/PAC top 4 champ there, but no reseeding. If it ends up being Tulane vs tOSU, so be it (the scenario everyone assumes will be the case).

3. Semi-reseeding... RB gets 1st pick of the opponent for the PAC/B1G top 4 champ to face. That way you get a sexy matchup... on paper.

Anyhow, I don't think the PAC10 will have a big say in what the RB decides either way. And we're never guaranteed a good game. We had that Stanford Iowa (McCaffrey) game that was a blowout fairly recently. You can go back to the hideous 9-3 Illini team lead by The Juice that was an absolute shellacking handed down by Carrol's Trojans. You can't schedule a 1 vs 5 in the first round or 2vs5 for that matter. It would dilute the SFs.

(12-01-2022 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think this deal shows that the Rose Bowl really was probably "going it alone" in these talks, at least for years 24/25, meaning it didn't have backing from the PAC or B1G, at least not to the level of those conferences (and let's face it, the B1G is the only one of the two that mattered) being willing to spike a deal to stand up for the Rose Bowl's demands. And without B1G support at that level, the RB had no choice but to acquiesce or fade out of existence once the new playoff system is adopted. But maybe I'm wrong and they will have that support in the 2026 deal.

Also, while I would prefer that we stay at the current four-team CFP, I am sure I will watch and enjoy the 12-team playoff.

I disagree. As strong as the P2 are, if they're being opposed by the entire rest of CFB they're not going to win. A combination of the B1G + the still-important Pac makes a big difference. We keep talking about the huge power the P2 has over the rest of CFB, but once you put an extra $20m++ into every p5 school's pocket that "P2" advantage doesn't look quite as pronounced. It's still the P5, or perhaps the P2 and p3.

(12-01-2022 09:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2022 09:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  Regardless of people’s opinions on competitiveness, any playoff format incorporating auto-bids for conference champs is more legitimate because of the addition of an actual metric: winning a conference championship. We will get six teams that earned a bid by winning something on the field.

A four team playoff was always a stop gap and not built to last. I’m glad it’s going the way of the BCS title game.

I hope the bowl games remain incorporated and NYD is once again the best day in college football, but now featuring three or four quarterfinals.

I don’t think this has any bearing on conference expansion.

To me, that logic only holds if the metric is a good one, and IMO conference champs is not a good metric.

For example, if team X wins the MWC, well, that just means they proved to be better than the other teams in the MWC. Doesn't tell us anything about how good they are compared to teams in any other conferences. Heck, we could have team X, a team that is 8-4, with 4 OOC losses but conference champs, get in over team Y, a 10-2 team that played a much tougher schedule and won more games in another conference but isn't their conference champ. That doesn't resonate with me.

So IMO, winning a conference should not be an automatic ticket to the playoffs, not in a sport like CFB where the playoffs are so small. For hoops, where they have 72 spots or whatever, then it IMO does no harm to give all conference champs an autobid.

That's why they only take the top 6 champs instead of all 10.

The all-mighty dollar wins again! Everybody has a price, including the Rose bowl. Hooyah!

(12-01-2022 01:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-01-2022 12:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-01-2022 09:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2022 09:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  Regardless of people’s opinions on competitiveness, any playoff format incorporating auto-bids for conference champs is more legitimate because of the addition of an actual metric: winning a conference championship. We will get six teams that earned a bid by winning something on the field.

A four team playoff was always a stop gap and not built to last. I’m glad it’s going the way of the BCS title game.

I hope the bowl games remain incorporated and NYD is once again the best day in college football, but now featuring three or four quarterfinals.

I don’t think this has any bearing on conference expansion.

To me, that logic only holds if the metric is a good one, and IMO conference champs is not a good metric.

For example, if team X wins the MWC, well, that just means they proved to be better than the other teams in the MWC. Doesn't tell us anything about how good they are compared to teams in any other conferences. Heck, we could have team X, a team that is 8-4, with 4 OOC losses but conference champs, get in over team Y, a 10-2 team that played a much tougher schedule and won more games in another conference but isn't their conference champ. That doesn't resonate with me.

So IMO, winning a conference should not be an automatic ticket to the playoffs, not in a sport like CFB where the playoffs are so small. For hoops, where they have 72 spots or whatever, then it IMO does no harm to give all conference champs an autobid.

The sample size of ooc games is small, so a concrete metric is far better than the eyeball test used now. The "consensus" about the best team has very frequently been proven wrong on the field.

Yeah - I've never understood the opposition to auto-bids for conference champs. It's even odder for this particular forum where conference realignment means everything... but then winning that conference is suddenly is supposed to mean *nothing* for the playoff.

Even now, it's still not *all* conference champs getting an auto-bid, but rather the top 6 (meaning that there's still an element of subjectivity applied).

Plus, there are still 6 spots for at-large bids where the committee can apply all of the completely subjective criteria that they want.

To be sure, I never agreed with the notion that all playoff participants *had* to be conference champs, either, as there can certainly be 2nd/3rd place teams from a league or independents like Notre Dame that should reasonably be included in a playoff.

So, there's a balance here that I think is correct: 50% of the field is objective conference champs and 50% of the field consists of subjective at-large bids. The "all or nothing" approaches from both sides (all at-larges or all conference champs) would make the playoff worse.

I look at years like 1971 when the top 3 teams in the country were all in the Big 8. The same year UCLA was the basketball champ and USC was #2, going 24-2 and losing only to UCLA, but they had to settle for the NIT.

(12-01-2022 01:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yeah - I've never understood the opposition to auto-bids for conference champs. It's even odder for this particular forum where conference realignment means everything... but then winning that conference is suddenly is supposed to mean *nothing* for the playoff.

Even now, it's still not *all* conference champs getting an auto-bid, but rather the top 6 (meaning that there's still an element of subjectivity applied).

Plus, there are still 6 spots for at-large bids where the committee can apply all of the completely subjective criteria that they want.

To be sure, I never agreed with the notion that all playoff participants *had* to be conference champs, either, as there can certainly be 2nd/3rd place teams from a league or independents like Notre Dame that should reasonably be included in a playoff.

So, there's a balance here that I think is correct: 50% of the field is objective conference champs and 50% of the field consists of subjective at-large bids. The "all or nothing" approaches from both sides (all at-larges or all conference champs) would make the playoff worse.

Automatic bids for conference champs could still be qualified. A champ with more than three losses, say, could open the possibility of another team being awarded that spot.

(12-01-2022 11:15 AM)stever20 Wrote:  official-

Fargo accent: OK then.

(12-01-2022 02:00 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2022 01:37 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  Some random thoughts on the topics in the thread:

1. The minor bowls will continue to thrive because ESPN and Fox Sports need programming during the holidays and December bowl games fill air time at a reasonable profit margin.

2. The SEC and B1G will continue to expand and dominate. Large fan bases, large alumni populations and wealthy donors create the massive media payouts, and now NIL collectives, that separate the SEC/B1G from the rest. Maybe even some form of pay to play will exist, but only with colleges that can afford it. All of that guarantees the SEC and B1G will attract the best talent and keep their dominant positions over whatever other conference or conferences survive. Colleges that want to be in that world will continue to seek membership in the SEC and B1G even if a playoff berth might be easier to get in their current conference.

3. The ACC schools will decide for themselves whether to go B1G or SEC whenever the conference splits. The SEC and ESPN will not be able to "shelter" teams that want to go to the B1G. The only way to force them into the SEC is to waive the GOR/ACC withdrawal penalties if they want to join the SEC, but fully impose them if they want to go to the B1G. That strategy, by the SEC, ACC and ESPN, would be a "conspiracy in restraint of trade" under federal antitrust laws, exposing them to treble damages (meaning 3x the actual damages suffered by the schools prevented from moving to the B1G) and potential civil and criminal penalties if the DOJ wants to get involved. The ESPN and SEC lawyers are not dumb enough to take that path.

4. At some point, the SEC and B1G will want to control big time college sports and will engineer a split from the NCAA. They will take over the CFP and "March Madness" BB tournament, and dictate the terms for other conferences to participate. Whatever remnants of the PAC, Big 12 and ACC exist at that time will happily join them.

These are all things I have been pointing out for some time now, and they are likely because it is logical. So I agree. And these things are likely because the SCOTUS rulings have lent their weight to moves in that direction.

As to ACC schools they will choose exactly like Texas and Oklahoma did and for the same reasons. Nobody ever needed to force a decision upon them. They will play games their customers (alumni and donors) want to see, and which are at accessible distances, and with similar social cultures. Why? It is what will hold the most interest, generate the most revenue with the lowest overhead, and is most friendly for non-revenue sports.

Those which are AAU schools are already in the greater academic consortium, AAU, and are already free to associate with, and share grants with, other AAU schools regardless of spots conference affiliation.

When I use the term "shelter" it just means they won't have to go to the Big 10 to earn a competitive media distribution, unless they want to do so. I also know the history of discussions between some of them and the SEC, just as I knew the history and duration of discussions between Texas and the SEC.

Diamond sports will play a part in the decision as well.

It will be interesting to see how the ACC splits because the SEC and B1G will be giving offers to some of the same schools. I expect the B1G to fill out its western wing sooner rather than later. If the media dollars are there, it will do the same with the ACC and take 4 when the time comes. Warren likes big media markets and the Athletic Directors like big recruiting markets, so I'd expect ND, Florida State, Miami, North Carolina and Georgia Tech to be in the mix for the B1G.

I don't think it's a certainty that Notre Dame will join a conference. ND will be able to park its Olympic sports in the Big 12 or whatever leftovers conference(s) exist. If NBC pays up they will stay independent. ND will never have a problem finding teams to play, except maybe on rivalry weekend.

As for the SEC, it will want some of the same teams, but Clemson, Virginia Tech, and NC State are yours if you want them. Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, BC and Wake probably have no spot in either the SEC or B1G. Virginia and Duke will be toss-ups, tag-alongs or gap fillers.

(12-01-2022 01:48 PM)wleakr Wrote:  The all-mighty dollar wins again! Everybody has a price, including the Rose bowl. Hooyah!

Yeah, their price was "we'll talk about 2026 at the appropriate time, not 2 years early".