http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...-in-future
Quote:ESPN.com polled all 10 FBS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick, and the only two who were willing to favor some form of expansion at this point are Mike Aresco of the American Athletic Conference and Sun Belt commissioner Karl Benson, who will retire following the expiration of his contract in June.
Other interesting tidbits:
Quote:People forget that pot pre-CFP for the Group of 5...now $90 million.
Quote:According to CFP executive director Bill Hancock, each Power 5 conference will receive an estimated $62 million base payout from the CFP, including $300,000 for each team that meets the NCAA's APR for participation in a postseason football game.
So the G5 conferences have to share $90 million, while each P5 conference gets at least $62 million. Seems like the rich only get richer and the G5 should just be happy we get anything at all.
Among the undecideds are the Mountain West's Thompson who said: "It depends on what the expansion is. It needs to be discussed. Is it six? Is it eight? We fought hard just to get this access point. Am I in favor? If it's five autonomous champions, the highest-selected Group of 5 champion and two at-larges, I think that would be something we would have interest in pursuing."
I didn't see any quotes from our commissioner, but I would be surprised if he wouldn't go along with something like that.
I would be in favor of that if that gave a spot for the G5 and still had the thanks for playing bowl as well, don't trade that one away either, it would increase funds for whichever conference made that bowl as well.
This is so gawd-dawn ridiculous.
The CFB should be the conference champions of all FBS conferences plus two (or four, whatever) at-large bids.
(01-17-2019 12:39 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: [ -> ]This is so gawd-dawn ridiculous.
The CFB should be the conference champions of all FBS conferences plus two (or four, whatever) at-large bids.
I have been saying that since they came up with the 4 spot "playoff", but its never gonna happen in FBS, they would have to share much more money to do it.
Since the CFP have began, we've had 10 semi-final games. All but 3 have been decided by double figured. 5 have been decided by 20+ points. We can't even get 4 playoff caliber teams yet people are talking about expanding to 8?
By the time March madness gets to the Final Four, I've mostly tuned out. But I am riveted to the first few rounds and the upsets.
CFB can be some of the same. I was no more interested in Alabama v Clemson than I am the man in the moon.
Your commissioner was probably wearing his OSU gear when he gave that interview. Freaking ridiculous.
(01-17-2019 12:39 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: [ -> ]This is so gawd-dawn ridiculous.
The CFB should be the conference champions of all FBS conferences plus two (or four, whatever) at-large bids.
Have a 12-team playoff. Conference Champs of all FBS conferences get an auto-bid plus two at-large (Independents including Notre Dame eligible for only at-large bids). Once the twelve teams are decided, use a ranking system to determine seeding. Top four teams get a bye to the second round of the playoffs.
Make each round of the playoffs progressively pay-out more. For instance (using round numbers):
Round 1: $100,000 for showing up, an extra $100,000 for winning (teams on bye would also receive some sort of money)
Round 2: $150,000 for showing up, extra $150,000 for winner
Round 3: $250,000 for showing up, extra $250,000 for winner
Round 4 (National Championship): $1,000,000, extra $1,000,000 for winner
The dollar values are arbitrary but this would provide incentives for winning. If P5 schools are so adamant about keeping the majority of the money in P5 conferences, the argument could be made that they would get more money by making it further in the playoffs, and that if they are so much more talented on the field, they shouldn't have a problem beating the G5 champs in the first round. So if all the G5 teams get wiped out in the first round, the G5 pay-out would only be half a million (or whatever the set the first round pay-outs as).
I can see push back about extending the season of these teams potentially by 4 weeks, but obviously the extended length in the season would only effect the teams who made the playoffs, and part of me thinks that college athletes, most of whom will never play a snap in the NFL, would trade having to play a few extra games for a shot at winning a national title.
(01-17-2019 01:43 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote: [ -> ] (01-17-2019 12:39 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: [ -> ]This is so gawd-dawn ridiculous.
The CFB should be the conference champions of all FBS conferences plus two (or four, whatever) at-large bids.
Have a 12-team playoff. Conference Champs of all FBS conferences get an auto-bid plus two at-large (Independents including Notre Dame eligible for only at-large bids). Once the twelve teams are decided, use a ranking system to determine seeding. Top four teams get a bye to the second round of the playoffs.
Make each round of the playoffs progressively pay-out more. For instance (using round numbers):
Round 1: $100,000 for showing up, an extra $100,000 for winning (teams on bye would also receive some sort of money)
Round 2: $150,000 for showing up, extra $150,000 for winner
Round 3: $250,000 for showing up, extra $250,000 for winner
Round 4 (National Championship): $1,000,000, extra $1,000,000 for winner
The dollar values are arbitrary but this would provide incentives for winning. If P5 schools are so adamant about keeping the majority of the money in P5 conferences, the argument could be made that they would get more money by making it further in the playoffs, and that if they are so much more talented on the field, they shouldn't have a problem beating the G5 champs in the first round. So if all the G5 teams get wiped out in the first round, the G5 pay-out would only be half a million (or whatever the set the first round pay-outs as).
I can see push back about extending the season of these teams potentially by 4 weeks, but obviously the extended length in the season would only effect the teams who made the playoffs, and part of me thinks that college athletes, most of whom will never play a snap in the NFL, would trade having to play a few extra games for a shot at winning a national title.
They would have to up the pay even in the first round, I mean if you look at bowls, even the smallest pays out more than 100K and here we are talking about conference champs and at larges in play. Make it 1 mill for first round, thats a mid level bowl payout, then 2 mill for second round, 3-4 mill for semifinal and whatever it is for the championship
(01-17-2019 02:29 PM)beefcake0520 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-17-2019 01:43 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote: [ -> ] (01-17-2019 12:39 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: [ -> ]This is so gawd-dawn ridiculous.
The CFB should be the conference champions of all FBS conferences plus two (or four, whatever) at-large bids.
Have a 12-team playoff. Conference Champs of all FBS conferences get an auto-bid plus two at-large (Independents including Notre Dame eligible for only at-large bids). Once the twelve teams are decided, use a ranking system to determine seeding. Top four teams get a bye to the second round of the playoffs.
Make each round of the playoffs progressively pay-out more. For instance (using round numbers):
Round 1: $100,000 for showing up, an extra $100,000 for winning (teams on bye would also receive some sort of money)
Round 2: $150,000 for showing up, extra $150,000 for winner
Round 3: $250,000 for showing up, extra $250,000 for winner
Round 4 (National Championship): $1,000,000, extra $1,000,000 for winner
The dollar values are arbitrary but this would provide incentives for winning. If P5 schools are so adamant about keeping the majority of the money in P5 conferences, the argument could be made that they would get more money by making it further in the playoffs, and that if they are so much more talented on the field, they shouldn't have a problem beating the G5 champs in the first round. So if all the G5 teams get wiped out in the first round, the G5 pay-out would only be half a million (or whatever the set the first round pay-outs as).
I can see push back about extending the season of these teams potentially by 4 weeks, but obviously the extended length in the season would only effect the teams who made the playoffs, and part of me thinks that college athletes, most of whom will never play a snap in the NFL, would trade having to play a few extra games for a shot at winning a national title.
They would have to up the pay even in the first round, I mean if you look at bowls, even the smallest pays out more than 100K and here we are talking about conference champs and at larges in play. Make it 1 mill for first round, thats a mid level bowl payout, then 2 mill for second round, 3-4 mill for semifinal and whatever it is for the championship
That's fair. I was just using numbers as a placeholder because I wasn't sure how much money they pay-out currently for upper-tier bowls and the CFP.
(01-17-2019 02:42 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote: [ -> ] (01-17-2019 02:29 PM)beefcake0520 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-17-2019 01:43 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote: [ -> ] (01-17-2019 12:39 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: [ -> ]This is so gawd-dawn ridiculous.
The CFB should be the conference champions of all FBS conferences plus two (or four, whatever) at-large bids.
Have a 12-team playoff. Conference Champs of all FBS conferences get an auto-bid plus two at-large (Independents including Notre Dame eligible for only at-large bids). Once the twelve teams are decided, use a ranking system to determine seeding. Top four teams get a bye to the second round of the playoffs.
Make each round of the playoffs progressively pay-out more. For instance (using round numbers):
Round 1: $100,000 for showing up, an extra $100,000 for winning (teams on bye would also receive some sort of money)
Round 2: $150,000 for showing up, extra $150,000 for winner
Round 3: $250,000 for showing up, extra $250,000 for winner
Round 4 (National Championship): $1,000,000, extra $1,000,000 for winner
The dollar values are arbitrary but this would provide incentives for winning. If P5 schools are so adamant about keeping the majority of the money in P5 conferences, the argument could be made that they would get more money by making it further in the playoffs, and that if they are so much more talented on the field, they shouldn't have a problem beating the G5 champs in the first round. So if all the G5 teams get wiped out in the first round, the G5 pay-out would only be half a million (or whatever the set the first round pay-outs as).
I can see push back about extending the season of these teams potentially by 4 weeks, but obviously the extended length in the season would only effect the teams who made the playoffs, and part of me thinks that college athletes, most of whom will never play a snap in the NFL, would trade having to play a few extra games for a shot at winning a national title.
They would have to up the pay even in the first round, I mean if you look at bowls, even the smallest pays out more than 100K and here we are talking about conference champs and at larges in play. Make it 1 mill for first round, thats a mid level bowl payout, then 2 mill for second round, 3-4 mill for semifinal and whatever it is for the championship
That's fair. I was just using numbers as a placeholder because I wasn't sure how much money they pay-out currently for upper-tier bowls and the CFP.
The downside to this, the thanks for playing bowl, if it still exists in this scenario, won't be paying 3-4 million like it has been, so they are gonna even it out no matter what the P5 greedy bastards do.
You guys are aware a 16 team playoff would consist of 15 games and completely destroy the bowl system? They certainly aren't going to have a 16 game playoff plus an additional 30 bowl games. The MAC will go back to only having 1 team making the postseason.
(01-17-2019 01:39 PM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]Your commissioner was probably wearing his OSU gear when he gave that interview. Freaking ridiculous.
No doubt !!
(01-17-2019 03:05 PM)kreed5120 Wrote: [ -> ]You guys are aware a 16 team playoff would consist of 15 games and completely destroy the bowl system? They certainly aren't going to have a 16 game playoff plus an additional 30 bowl games. The MAC will go back to only having 1 team making the postseason.
Not so fast there. The NCAA basketball tournament has 68 teams, but we still have several other postseason tourneys for good teams who did not make the NCAA tourney. There could and would certainly still be bowls for teams who did not make the NCAA football tournament.
(01-17-2019 01:39 PM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]Your commissioner was probably wearing his OSU gear when he gave that interview. Freaking ridiculous.
Easy, hombre. The title of this thread may be leading people to think our commissioner opposes playoff expansion. He does not. He is "undecided." The quotes make it clear that the details matter to our commissioner and to others. As they should.
I would oppose an expansion if it did not an automatic bid for the G5. That doesn't mean I oppose an expansion. I want a 16 team playoff with automatic bids for every conference. The closer we can get to that, the more likely I would be to support an expansion.
(01-17-2019 03:05 PM)kreed5120 Wrote: [ -> ]You guys are aware a 16 team playoff would consist of 15 games and completely destroy the bowl system? They certainly aren't going to have a 16 game playoff plus an additional 30 bowl games. The MAC will go back to only having 1 team making the postseason.
The NIT persists. I imagine bowl games would, too. The current four-team system has already taken a lot of the luster out of bowl games, and it is hurting the G5 because even great G5 teams can't get into the playoff, no matter what they do on the field. If we can improve the playoffs to the point where the MAC has access, such as through a G5 automatic bid, that seems like a step forward to me.
Maybe, maybe not, so far they have used the bowl structure for the playoff, granted its only 3 games. There are too many 6-6 teams going to bowls these days anyways honestly. They currently use two bowls for the playoff, so it would go to 8 bowls. Teams that make it in, that conference loses one of their tie ins to make up for it, about like already happens when not enough eligible teams are left in said conference. So instead of using the sugar bowl, orange bowl, they would expand it out to include all rotational sites (fiesta, cotton, peach, rose) and add in the next two highest paying bowls. 8 bowls would initially get things started, then its down to 4, then 2, then the champ game, so a total of 14 bowls gets used for this. Some of the upper middle tier bowls and low middle tier may be used to get the playoff started. The rest of the bowl system gets used as it has been. All conference loses at least 1 tie in to make this happen, some more than 1 tie in.
The other basketball tournament games are also hosted at a teams home arena and in the case of CIT and CBI are pay to play tournaments. The good TV slots, general fan interest, and advertising dollars are all going to be poured into the expanded playoff games. I feel it's naive to think it won't have any negative impact on the non playoff bowls.
Sure it will have an effect, how much is anyone's guess. maybe it needs to happen anyways, bowls used to be meaningful, now its just a small dollar with a bunch of 6-6 teams not deserving of one playing. I like see my team play in a bowl game, but I am not naive enough to think it has the same meaning as it used to when the MAC only had the motor city bowl until 2001, then again, there wasn't 1000 bowls back then either.
I agree largely where Aresco stands on this. If we had an 8 team playoff with Top 6 conference champions it basically expands championship game week into the first round of a 12 to 14 team playoff.
Imagine if it was conference champs only playoff, 10 teams. Conference championship games would be a defacto first round so 20 teams.
Play-In Round: Christmas weekend for seeds 7-10.
Quarterfinals: NYD weekend
Semifinals: Second weekend in Jan. Same site doubleheader.
Finals: Third Monday in January.
Does this kill the sanctity of the academic calendar? Only 6 schools would have to participate in 2 CFP games. Only 2 schools would need to do play 3 rounds. I don't think its that painful as Steinbrecher says.
Making the semifinal round into a two session doubleheader would ease ticket concerns about a neutral site.
Bowls for each round.....
Play In: Holiday, Independence
Quarters/Semis/Finals: NY6 Bowls
All it would require to have a 10 team playoff is the addition of two mid tier games played Christmas weekend. Hardly a dent in the existing bowl system just like going out an extra weekend has a very little impact to the academic calendar.