The CFP Board issued a statement after its meeting today, which included the issue of playoff expansion:
"As far as expanding the number of teams in the Playoff, it's way too soon – much too soon – to know if that is even a possibility," said board of managers president Mark Keenum (President of Mississippi State University). "It's fair to say the speculation about expansion has outdistanced the reality of what the commissioners and the presidents have discussed. If a decision were to be made down the road, the Presidents would be the ones to make it and we are not there."
The CFP statement also said there was "unanimous agreement" that the playoff has been a "tremendous success".
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2814...yoff-field
So in essence, they will finish the contract out and then decide at that time.
(01-07-2019 05:32 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]So in essence, they will finish the contract out and then decide at that time.
I think few believed there would be a change this quickly. That said, its clear that pressure to expand is clearly building. These comments are less instructive than other information that was made public today. More interesting to me is that after everyone connected to the CFP has been saying for a year that the CFP was practically "perfect"....it comes out that the Big10 has been demanding a review of the way the teams are chosen for over a year. And that is why the simple admission that expansion is being looked at by the CFP administrators is more significant than it might seem on the surface. Typically, the CFP would either just lie and say it wasnt discussed or they would deflect and not address the issue at all publicly. The admission that expansion is even being considered is very odd for this group.
(01-07-2019 06:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 05:32 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]So in essence, they will finish the contract out and then decide at that time.
I think few believed there would be a change this quickly. That said, its clear that pressure to expand is clearly building. These comments are less instructive than other information that was made public today. More interesting to me is that after everyone connected to the CFP has been saying for a year that the CFP was practically "perfect"....it comes out that the Big10 has been demanding a review of the way the teams are chosen for over a year. And that is why the simple admission that expansion is being looked at by the CFP administrators is more significant than it might seem on the surface. Typically, the CFP would either just lie and say it wasnt discussed or they would deflect and not address the issue at all publicly. The admission that expansion is even being considered is very odd for this group.
The B1G's concerns don't necessarily conflict with today's statement. Concern about whether the CFP committee is following the agreed on decision guidelines in choosing teams doesn't imply a demand for expansion.
Given the obvious power of the B1G, it is highly unlikely that this kind of emphatic statement would have been made by the board if they really were pushing for expansion.
(01-07-2019 06:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 06:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 05:32 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]So in essence, they will finish the contract out and then decide at that time.
I think few believed there would be a change this quickly. That said, its clear that pressure to expand is clearly building. These comments are less instructive than other information that was made public today. More interesting to me is that after everyone connected to the CFP has been saying for a year that the CFP was practically "perfect"....it comes out that the Big10 has been demanding a review of the way the teams are chosen for over a year. And that is why the simple admission that expansion is being looked at by the CFP administrators is more significant than it might seem on the surface. Typically, the CFP would either just lie and say it wasnt discussed or they would deflect and not address the issue at all publicly. The admission that expansion is even being considered is very odd for this group.
The B1G's concerns don't necessarily conflict with today's statement. Concern about whether the CFP committee is following the agreed on decision guidelines in choosing teams doesn't imply a demand for expansion.
Given the obvious power of the B1G, it is highly unlikely that this kind of emphatic statement would have been made by the board if they really were pushing for expansion.
And there's nothing in the statement that rules out changing it for the January 2021 game. They're just saying they are a long way from that point, which I think everyone understood. If they expand, changing in year 10 is much more likely than being able to get it done for year 7. But they got it all done in a year when they went from 2 to 4, so its not impossible.
I can't decide whether that written statement reads more like
(a) Typical BS corporate doublespeak, or
(b) A statement that kidnappers would force their hostage to read on camera.
(01-07-2019 06:53 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 06:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 06:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 05:32 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]So in essence, they will finish the contract out and then decide at that time.
I think few believed there would be a change this quickly. That said, its clear that pressure to expand is clearly building. These comments are less instructive than other information that was made public today. More interesting to me is that after everyone connected to the CFP has been saying for a year that the CFP was practically "perfect"....it comes out that the Big10 has been demanding a review of the way the teams are chosen for over a year. And that is why the simple admission that expansion is being looked at by the CFP administrators is more significant than it might seem on the surface. Typically, the CFP would either just lie and say it wasnt discussed or they would deflect and not address the issue at all publicly. The admission that expansion is even being considered is very odd for this group.
The B1G's concerns don't necessarily conflict with today's statement. Concern about whether the CFP committee is following the agreed on decision guidelines in choosing teams doesn't imply a demand for expansion.
Given the obvious power of the B1G, it is highly unlikely that this kind of emphatic statement would have been made by the board if they really were pushing for expansion.
And there's nothing in the statement that rules out changing it for the January 2021 game. They're just saying they are a long way from that point, which I think everyone understood. If they expand, changing in year 10 is much more likely than being able to get it done for year 7. But they got it all done in a year when they went from 2 to 4, so its not impossible.
I agree expansion in the next couple years isn't impossible. But, today's CFP meeting seems to make it much less likely than it seemed a week ago.
(01-07-2019 06:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 06:53 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 06:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 06:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 05:32 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]So in essence, they will finish the contract out and then decide at that time.
I think few believed there would be a change this quickly. That said, its clear that pressure to expand is clearly building. These comments are less instructive than other information that was made public today. More interesting to me is that after everyone connected to the CFP has been saying for a year that the CFP was practically "perfect"....it comes out that the Big10 has been demanding a review of the way the teams are chosen for over a year. And that is why the simple admission that expansion is being looked at by the CFP administrators is more significant than it might seem on the surface. Typically, the CFP would either just lie and say it wasnt discussed or they would deflect and not address the issue at all publicly. The admission that expansion is even being considered is very odd for this group.
The B1G's concerns don't necessarily conflict with today's statement. Concern about whether the CFP committee is following the agreed on decision guidelines in choosing teams doesn't imply a demand for expansion.
Given the obvious power of the B1G, it is highly unlikely that this kind of emphatic statement would have been made by the board if they really were pushing for expansion.
And there's nothing in the statement that rules out changing it for the January 2021 game. They're just saying they are a long way from that point, which I think everyone understood. If they expand, changing in year 10 is much more likely than being able to get it done for year 7. But they got it all done in a year when they went from 2 to 4, so its not impossible.
I agree expansion in the next couple years isn't impossible. But, today's CFP meeting seems to make it much less likely than it seemed a week ago.
There are too many items that need to be agreed upon and if that were to occur, it would likely occur after the original contract much like it was in the last year of the BCS.
Items:
- Schedule Uniformity - Requiring all conferences to move to a nine conference schedule.
- Independents - Even though is ND, you need to provide all independents in theory the same access.
- Is it the eight best teams or will there be automatic qualifiers. This is what lead to the BCS anti-trust talk with the automatic. I think if the conference champion is not in the top eight, do they really belong? Many forget that even with Basketball, top 8 teams don't have to win their conferences.
- What is the financial split, P5 is not going to tale less then they are already making.
Probably this is the tip of the iceberg.
(01-07-2019 06:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 06:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 05:32 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]So in essence, they will finish the contract out and then decide at that time.
I think few believed there would be a change this quickly. That said, its clear that pressure to expand is clearly building. These comments are less instructive than other information that was made public today. More interesting to me is that after everyone connected to the CFP has been saying for a year that the CFP was practically "perfect"....it comes out that the Big10 has been demanding a review of the way the teams are chosen for over a year. And that is why the simple admission that expansion is being looked at by the CFP administrators is more significant than it might seem on the surface. Typically, the CFP would either just lie and say it wasnt discussed or they would deflect and not address the issue at all publicly. The admission that expansion is even being considered is very odd for this group.
The B1G's concerns don't necessarily conflict with today's statement. Concern about whether the CFP committee is following the agreed on decision guidelines in choosing teams doesn't imply a demand for expansion.
Given the obvious power of the B1G, it is highly unlikely that this kind of emphatic statement would have been made by the board if they really were pushing for expansion.
I never said it did....I said it conflcts with prior indications that they believed the CFP was darn near perfect just the way it was and they saw no reason for any changes. The reality is these folks arent going to tell you whats really happening and the fact they actually admitted that CFP expansion was discussed in any way at all is surprisingly out of character.
(01-07-2019 06:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 06:53 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 06:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 06:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 05:32 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]So in essence, they will finish the contract out and then decide at that time.
I think few believed there would be a change this quickly. That said, its clear that pressure to expand is clearly building. These comments are less instructive than other information that was made public today. More interesting to me is that after everyone connected to the CFP has been saying for a year that the CFP was practically "perfect"....it comes out that the Big10 has been demanding a review of the way the teams are chosen for over a year. And that is why the simple admission that expansion is being looked at by the CFP administrators is more significant than it might seem on the surface. Typically, the CFP would either just lie and say it wasnt discussed or they would deflect and not address the issue at all publicly. The admission that expansion is even being considered is very odd for this group.
The B1G's concerns don't necessarily conflict with today's statement. Concern about whether the CFP committee is following the agreed on decision guidelines in choosing teams doesn't imply a demand for expansion.
Given the obvious power of the B1G, it is highly unlikely that this kind of emphatic statement would have been made by the board if they really were pushing for expansion.
And there's nothing in the statement that rules out changing it for the January 2021 game. They're just saying they are a long way from that point, which I think everyone understood. If they expand, changing in year 10 is much more likely than being able to get it done for year 7. But they got it all done in a year when they went from 2 to 4, so its not impossible.
I agree expansion in the next couple years isn't impossible. But, today's CFP meeting seems to make it much less likely than it seemed a week ago.
^^^^^THIS^^^^^is close.
What it tells me there will be expansion at the end of this cycle....it will take that long to get certain elements to move to that position---but in the end---the money will make it happen.
(01-07-2019 08:35 PM)msm96wolf Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 06:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 06:53 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 06:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 06:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]I think few believed there would be a change this quickly. That said, its clear that pressure to expand is clearly building. These comments are less instructive than other information that was made public today. More interesting to me is that after everyone connected to the CFP has been saying for a year that the CFP was practically "perfect"....it comes out that the Big10 has been demanding a review of the way the teams are chosen for over a year. And that is why the simple admission that expansion is being looked at by the CFP administrators is more significant than it might seem on the surface. Typically, the CFP would either just lie and say it wasnt discussed or they would deflect and not address the issue at all publicly. The admission that expansion is even being considered is very odd for this group.
The B1G's concerns don't necessarily conflict with today's statement. Concern about whether the CFP committee is following the agreed on decision guidelines in choosing teams doesn't imply a demand for expansion.
Given the obvious power of the B1G, it is highly unlikely that this kind of emphatic statement would have been made by the board if they really were pushing for expansion.
And there's nothing in the statement that rules out changing it for the January 2021 game. They're just saying they are a long way from that point, which I think everyone understood. If they expand, changing in year 10 is much more likely than being able to get it done for year 7. But they got it all done in a year when they went from 2 to 4, so its not impossible.
I agree expansion in the next couple years isn't impossible. But, today's CFP meeting seems to make it much less likely than it seemed a week ago.
There are too many items that need to be agreed upon and if that were to occur, it would likely occur after the original contract much like it was in the last year of the BCS.
Items:
- Schedule Uniformity - Requiring all conferences to move to a nine conference schedule.
- Independents - Even though is ND, you need to provide all independents in theory the same access.
- Is it the eight best teams or will there be automatic qualifiers. This is what lead to the BCS anti-trust talk with the automatic. I think if the conference champion is not in the top eight, do they really belong? Many forget that even with Basketball, top 8 teams don't have to win their conferences.
- What is the financial split, P5 is not going to tale less then they are already making.
Probably this is the tip of the iceberg.
Those are insignificant or non-existent issues.
No need for schedule uniformity.
No need to change independent access.
8 best or auto is an issue, but the main reason for 8 is auto. Anti-trust will not be an issue.
Financial split will be pretty much the same % as now-I think its 85% to the P5 and 15% for everyone else. It will be more money for everybody.
The issues are:
Rose and Sugar and those 4 conferences' separate money.
Finding time slots to work around NFL.
Before January 1 or after January 1 and how that impacts NYD bowls.
Home vs. neutral sites and how to maximize attendance 3 weeks in a row if neutral.
How to slot the 8 teams (i.e. Rose/Sugar/Orange preferences or all seeding?).
And the elephant-how the players get compensated for the extra game.
(01-07-2019 09:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 06:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 06:53 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 06:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 06:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]I think few believed there would be a change this quickly. That said, its clear that pressure to expand is clearly building. These comments are less instructive than other information that was made public today. More interesting to me is that after everyone connected to the CFP has been saying for a year that the CFP was practically "perfect"....it comes out that the Big10 has been demanding a review of the way the teams are chosen for over a year. And that is why the simple admission that expansion is being looked at by the CFP administrators is more significant than it might seem on the surface. Typically, the CFP would either just lie and say it wasnt discussed or they would deflect and not address the issue at all publicly. The admission that expansion is even being considered is very odd for this group.
The B1G's concerns don't necessarily conflict with today's statement. Concern about whether the CFP committee is following the agreed on decision guidelines in choosing teams doesn't imply a demand for expansion.
Given the obvious power of the B1G, it is highly unlikely that this kind of emphatic statement would have been made by the board if they really were pushing for expansion.
And there's nothing in the statement that rules out changing it for the January 2021 game. They're just saying they are a long way from that point, which I think everyone understood. If they expand, changing in year 10 is much more likely than being able to get it done for year 7. But they got it all done in a year when they went from 2 to 4, so its not impossible.
I agree expansion in the next couple years isn't impossible. But, today's CFP meeting seems to make it much less likely than it seemed a week ago.
^^^^^THIS^^^^^is close.
What it tells me there will be expansion at the end of this cycle....it will take that long to get certain elements to move to that position---but in the end---the money will make it happen.
I am 50-50 about expansion in 2026. Wouldn't surprise me either way.
(01-07-2019 05:32 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]So in essence, they will finish the contract out and then decide at that time.
Or, do what they did with the BCS despite the calls for its removal...quietly get an extension just a few years ahead.
With no real agreement on this from all, extension for another 5-10 years will kick the can down the road and allow what is a pretty glacial sector to have more time to collect money and keep its power with others mightily unhappy.
At best for those of us who hope for change, 4 goes to 6 with top seeds getting a bye. The major bowls no longer rotate, AQ for major conferences if reachable within a range, and an at-large that’s open ended like it was for the BCS. Expand the NY6 to include Citrus, Gator, and/or Holiday Bowl as the successors to the also-rans where there’s a non-major spot.
(01-07-2019 09:58 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 08:35 PM)msm96wolf Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 06:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 06:53 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2019 06:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]The B1G's concerns don't necessarily conflict with today's statement. Concern about whether the CFP committee is following the agreed on decision guidelines in choosing teams doesn't imply a demand for expansion.
Given the obvious power of the B1G, it is highly unlikely that this kind of emphatic statement would have been made by the board if they really were pushing for expansion.
And there's nothing in the statement that rules out changing it for the January 2021 game. They're just saying they are a long way from that point, which I think everyone understood. If they expand, changing in year 10 is much more likely than being able to get it done for year 7. But they got it all done in a year when they went from 2 to 4, so its not impossible.
I agree expansion in the next couple years isn't impossible. But, today's CFP meeting seems to make it much less likely than it seemed a week ago.
There are too many items that need to be agreed upon and if that were to occur, it would likely occur after the original contract much like it was in the last year of the BCS.
Items:
- Schedule Uniformity - Requiring all conferences to move to a nine conference schedule.
- Independents - Even though is ND, you need to provide all independents in theory the same access.
- Is it the eight best teams or will there be automatic qualifiers. This is what lead to the BCS anti-trust talk with the automatic. I think if the conference champion is not in the top eight, do they really belong? Many forget that even with Basketball, top 8 teams don't have to win their conferences.
- What is the financial split, P5 is not going to tale less then they are already making.
Probably this is the tip of the iceberg.
Those are insignificant or non-existent issues.
No need for schedule uniformity.
No need to change independent access.
8 best or auto is an issue, but the main reason for 8 is auto. Anti-trust will not be an issue.
Financial split will be pretty much the same % as now-I think its 85% to the P5 and 15% for everyone else. It will be more money for everybody.
The issues are:
Rose and Sugar and those 4 conferences' separate money.
Finding time slots to work around NFL.
Before January 1 or after January 1 and how that impacts NYD bowls.
Home vs. neutral sites and how to maximize attendance 3 weeks in a row if neutral.
How to slot the 8 teams (i.e. Rose/Sugar/Orange preferences or all seeding?).
And the elephant-how the players get compensated for the extra game.
Between the two of you, you've convinced me that there are significant issues that would have to be addressed to move from 4 to 8, such that it's unlikely to happen in the near future.