Quote:P5 to P4 WILL happen, you can take that to the bank.

Yeah, if it's right before the 2008 financial crisis! :)

B12 isn't dissolving. There's enough G5s/BYU to join if there's any real pressure for them to expand or lose any teams. They don't need 12 teams to have a conf championship game either now.

I don't even see the B12 being in any threat of dissolving. There's no push by the NCAA or fans for there to be a P4, nor other conferences to take them all in evenly or something to go to a full 16.

(09-01-2015 09:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  8 is the right number for the playoff. The biggest obstacles in getting there are the bowl games and the fact that they have, ummm, influenced ADs, coaches, and commissioners so much over the years.

IMO going from 4 to 8 playoff teams is the tipping point after which nearly everyone will see the bowl games as college football's version of the NIT -- nice filler programming, but just a sideshow. The bowl guys know that things are trending this way already, and they will fight like hell to keep the playoff at 4 teams as long as they possibly can.

8 won't happen for awhile....I was very pro-8 up until last year....

I think the new system is such a success that they're going to run with that for awhile. I don't think we're done with realignment either....I see Texas and Oklahoma eventually leaving the Big XII

(09-03-2015 06:58 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:P5 to P4 WILL happen, you can take that to the bank.

Yeah, if it's right before the 2008 financial crisis! :)

B12 isn't dissolving. There's enough G5s/BYU to join if there's any real pressure for them to expand or lose any teams. They don't need 12 teams to have a conf championship game either now.

I don't even see the B12 being in any threat of dissolving. There's no push by the NCAA or fans for there to be a P4, nor other conferences to take them all in evenly or something to go to a full 16.

I think more teams will leave, namely Oklahoma and Texas....but I think the Big XII will backfill, possibly to a much larger conference. That's when they'll grab BYU, Cincinnati, and a whole host of good teams.

(09-04-2015 09:27 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:58 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:P5 to P4 WILL happen, you can take that to the bank.

Yeah, if it's right before the 2008 financial crisis! :)

B12 isn't dissolving. There's enough G5s/BYU to join if there's any real pressure for them to expand or lose any teams. They don't need 12 teams to have a conf championship game either now.

I don't even see the B12 being in any threat of dissolving. There's no push by the NCAA or fans for there to be a P4, nor other conferences to take them all in evenly or something to go to a full 16.

I think more teams will leave, namely Oklahoma and Texas....but I think the Big XII will backfill, possibly to a much larger conference. That's when they'll grab BYU, Cincinnati, and a whole host of good teams.

It's easy to say stuff like this but when you look at what it would take for that to happen it's' obvious how unlikely it is to happen. Same deal with ACC teams leaving at this point.

There are just too many reasons why that won't happen unless it is a full blow dissolving of the conference. All the lawsuits as well as political repercussions alone make it nearly impossible. Then mix in TV partners who are heavily invested in these schools and you realize how complicated the whole thing is. To break up a power conference would require cooperation among many entities such as Fox, ESPN, and the other power conferences. That alone seems unlikely.

Kinda like the p-5 breakaway. Sounds good to say it but when you look at what it would take to make that happen it's clearly unlikely. g-5 schools are not going to quietly go form their own league outside the p-5.

But if it sis a full blown dissolving of a conference it is more likely to be the Big 12 as there is less dead weight to find homes for. Finding a home for ISU is much easier than Wake. ISU actually has a fanbase.

(09-02-2015 01:34 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 12:45 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 09:46 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  You guys try to make it sound so simple to move to 8....

Hey, let's move to 8. Ok, done. Sweet!

No, you have a lot of hurdles to get past and it is highly doubtful it will ever happen within the next decade and a half.

When the university presidents are almost all in agreement of not wanting the football season to expand into a two semester sport, the entire discussion of an 8 team playoff is dead before the conversation via the phones eve gets started.

With all due respect, that's completely absurd. It would be a very easy change to me. They could do it next week if they wanted to do it.

We're talking about adding one more week to the season - one stinking week.

I have a crazy idea! Instead of taking a month off between the last regular-season game and the start of the playoffs, let's take three weeks off. Voila! Complex problem solved! We did it! It's a miracle!

The only reason why there is not an eight team playoff now – and why it took us so long to institute a four team playoff – is because the money schools, like Nebraska, don't want to relinquish any of their power and are more than willing to sacrifice the good of the game to maintain that power.

As for people wanting the "eight best teams," that's the problem. Who decides that decides who are the eight best teams?

Remember, Ohio State is the defending national champion, crushing both Alabama and Oregon along the way. Also, the Buckeyes just became the first team in history to become the unanimous number one team in the preseason AP poll. Nobody disputes they are the baddest cat on the block right now.

However, if the four team playoff format was instituted this year instead of last year, they would've never had the opportunity to play for the national championship. Doesn't that seem terribly wrong to you because it seems absurd to me - a relic of the past that needs to be put out to pasture.

Similarly, who's to say that if Baylor or TCU would have gotten in, they wouldn't be the defending national champion right now? I am certainly not prepared to say that. I think those two teams were better than Florida State and probably better than Alabama too. I'm not sure that they were as good as Oregon – that's a tough call. However, I absolutely think at least one of them should've been given the opportunity to find out.

Guys, this isn't some sort of theory. We see this in every other sport all the time. It is not uncommon in the NFL for an 11-5 team to be left out of the playoffs in favor of a 10-6 team. When that happens, people knowing about the playoffs and the injustice of it all but they get over it quickly because enough teams have a legitimate chance to prove themselves. And sometimes that 10-6 team, that everyone said didn't belong in the playoffs, goes on the roll and makes it to the Super Bowl.

What I think would be a travesty is if the NFL said, "Well, Indianapolis, we are really bullish on your future and we know that you're a very good team and that you have a better record than the New England Patriots. Unfortunately for you, they have Tom Brady – an exceptional player with matinee star looks – and they have more fans that will travel to games than you do, so they're getting in instead of you."

That would be absurd and nobody would tolerate it for a second. And yet that is a system we accept without thinking about in college football. I am sorry if this offends anyone but that is a stupid system that not only should not be tolerated, it cannot be tolerated. Not in 2015.

The sheer size and scope of college football requires that there be some subjectivity to it. However, our primary objective going forward should be to eliminate subjectivity wherever we can. To me, the only way to do that is to create a postseason structure that at least guarantees the champions of the power five conferences a spot in the playoff.

Honestly, I cannot even believe this is being debated.

University Presidents have already stated they have no interest in an 8 team playoff with the way the current football season is laid out. It is a dead issue to them.

They were saying the same thing months before the 4 team playoff was approved.

(09-04-2015 09:25 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 09:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  8 is the right number for the playoff. The biggest obstacles in getting there are the bowl games and the fact that they have, ummm, influenced ADs, coaches, and commissioners so much over the years.

IMO going from 4 to 8 playoff teams is the tipping point after which nearly everyone will see the bowl games as college football's version of the NIT -- nice filler programming, but just a sideshow. The bowl guys know that things are trending this way already, and they will fight like hell to keep the playoff at 4 teams as long as they possibly can.

8 won't happen for awhile....I was very pro-8 up until last year....

I think the new system is such a success that they're going to run with that for awhile. I don't think we're done with realignment either....I see Texas and Oklahoma eventually leaving the Big XII

I don't think TCU or Baylor would agree with you.

(09-02-2015 08:01 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  As I've noted here previously, the solution is easy:

Rose Bowl: Big Ten vs. Pac-12
Sugar Bowl: SEC vs. At-large
Orange Bowl: ACC vs. At-large
Fiesta (or Cotton) Bowl: Big 12 vs. At-large

One at-large spot is granted to the top G5 conference champ. Winners are re-seeded for the semifinals. The P5 get their auto-bids. The bowl system is preserved and even enhanced by going back to traditional roots. The G5 have access (but not too much access to the point where it's unrealistic and the P5 wouldn't agree to it). There's still access for Notre Dame or a top level 2nd place P5 team. There's enough flexibility to allow for a portion of the field to get into the playoff completely on the field, while also allowing for a portion to get in based on more subjective factors. Most importantly, absolutely NOTHING else changes about the college football calendar changes with the exception of 2 teams playing a championship game 7 to 10 days later than it's played now. (That means no insane proposals to cut a game out of the regular season or dropping conference championship games or destroying the bowl system or any other proposal that would cause the P5 to lose a single cent compared to now.)

Less is more when we're talking about expanding the playoff.

Agree, this is the way to go. It preserves the best of big-bowl tradition with a sufficiently-inclusive playoff to satisfy most fans. Yes it extends the season, but the eight teams participating would all have four weeks off between championship weekend and the beginning of the playoff to get caught up on academics, heal up physically, and enjoy a bit of family time at Christmas. Meanwhile the media would have ample opportunity to hype the matchups and build up a frenzy of anticipation. Ratings would be off the charts, and everyone would be asking why we waited so long to do this.

(09-02-2015 01:34 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 12:45 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 09:46 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  You guys try to make it sound so simple to move to 8....

Hey, let's move to 8. Ok, done. Sweet!

No, you have a lot of hurdles to get past and it is highly doubtful it will ever happen within the next decade and a half.

When the university presidents are almost all in agreement of not wanting the football season to expand into a two semester sport, the entire discussion of an 8 team playoff is dead before the conversation via the phones eve gets started.

With all due respect, that's completely absurd. It would be a very easy change to me. They could do it next week if they wanted to do it.

We're talking about adding one more week to the season - one stinking week.

I have a crazy idea! Instead of taking a month off between the last regular-season game and the start of the playoffs, let's take three weeks off. Voila! Complex problem solved! We did it! It's a miracle!

The only reason why there is not an eight team playoff now – and why it took us so long to institute a four team playoff – is because the money schools, like Nebraska, don't want to relinquish any of their power and are more than willing to sacrifice the good of the game to maintain that power.

As for people wanting the "eight best teams," that's the problem. Who decides that decides who are the eight best teams?

Remember, Ohio State is the defending national champion, crushing both Alabama and Oregon along the way. Also, the Buckeyes just became the first team in history to become the unanimous number one team in the preseason AP poll. Nobody disputes they are the baddest cat on the block right now.

However, if the four team playoff format was instituted this year instead of last year, they would've never had the opportunity to play for the national championship. Doesn't that seem terribly wrong to you because it seems absurd to me - a relic of the past that needs to be put out to pasture.

Similarly, who's to say that if Baylor or TCU would have gotten in, they wouldn't be the defending national champion right now? I am certainly not prepared to say that. I think those two teams were better than Florida State and probably better than Alabama too. I'm not sure that they were as good as Oregon – that's a tough call. However, I absolutely think at least one of them should've been given the opportunity to find out.

Guys, this isn't some sort of theory. We see this in every other sport all the time. It is not uncommon in the NFL for an 11-5 team to be left out of the playoffs in favor of a 10-6 team. When that happens, people knowing about the playoffs and the injustice of it all but they get over it quickly because enough teams have a legitimate chance to prove themselves. And sometimes that 10-6 team, that everyone said didn't belong in the playoffs, goes on the roll and makes it to the Super Bowl.

What I think would be a travesty is if the NFL said, "Well, Indianapolis, we are really bullish on your future and we know that you're a very good team and that you have a better record than the New England Patriots. Unfortunately for you, they have Tom Brady – an exceptional player with matinee star looks – and they have more fans that will travel to games than you do, so they're getting in instead of you."

That would be absurd and nobody would tolerate it for a second. And yet that is a system we accept without thinking about in college football. I am sorry if this offends anyone but that is a stupid system that not only should not be tolerated, it cannot be tolerated. Not in 2015.

The sheer size and scope of college football requires that there be some subjectivity to it. However, our primary objective going forward should be to eliminate subjectivity wherever we can. To me, the only way to do that is to create a postseason structure that at least guarantees the champions of the power five conferences a spot in the playoff.

Honestly, I cannot even believe this is being debated.

University Presidents have already stated they have no interest in an 8 team playoff with the way the current football season is laid out. It is a dead issue to them.

You're absolutely right, some university presidents have pooh-poohed this idea. They will continue to do so… Until they don't.

Those same people also swore up-and-down there would never be a playoff and that we would never coordinate the bowls to determine a national champion... Until they did it (twice).

It is going to take a deserving Big 10 team or SEC team being left out for it to happen, but it is going to happen. There's no question about that.

6 or 8 make a lot of sense but neither really are realistic. The big 10, SEC and major bowls will veto a move to 6 or 8. Those 2 conferences want to expand to 16+ and jumping to an 8 team playoff makes it more difficult to raid the other leagues. The major bowls don't want lose power either.

With all due respect, even schools like ND and OSU would never be able to sell out three neutral site games back to back to back, which is what you'd be looking at with an extra round. That's the deal breaker. You sell those tickets and the presidents would be all on it. But there is not enough money and fandom to supplement that. Supply and demand. Yes there is a home game option, but that doesn't to be a viable option unless the P5 schools are guaranteed home games, or at least the top 4 P5.

Even as it is now, it's a killer for fans. Do you pick the semi-final game or the final? Do you buy tickets for your bowl tie in in advance? Do you get reimbursed if your schools makes the playoff or do you lose money? I'm not buying these tickets so I wouldn't know.

But yeah, that's the gist of why we aren't getting an 8 team field that adds an extra week to the season. You go to four conferences you have a solution. You get rid of CCG weekend, you have a less amenable solution that will have enormous hurdles and ramifications for the landscape.

I don't know why people let the basic economics get passed them.

(09-10-2015 10:24 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  With all due respect, even schools like ND and OSU would never be able to sell out three neutral site games back to back to back, which is what you'd be looking at with an extra round. That's the deal breaker. You sell those tickets and the presidents would be all on it. But there is not enough money and fandom to supplement that. Supply and demand.

Even as it is now, it's a killer for fans. Do you pick the semi-final game or the final? Do you buy tickets for your bowl tie in in advance? Do you get reimbursed if your schools makes the playoff or do you lose money? I'm not buying these tickets so I wouldn't know.

But yeah, that's the gist of why we aren't getting an 8 team field that adds an extra week to the season. You go to four conferences you have a solution. You get rid of CCG weekend, you have a less amenable solution that will have enormous hurdles and ramifications for the landscape.

I don't know why people let the basic economics get passed them.

The mistake that you're making is that the "basic economics" of college sports (and pro sports, for that matter) are no longer driven by ticket sales. It is now about TV money first and foremost. It is then about sponsorship, luxury suite sales and events rights fees that are guaranteed no matter who is playing. The average fan ticket sales are a distant third compared to those first two items. An 8-team playoff would make a ton of TV rights and sponsorship money by simply being played in a TV studio without any audience. I'm not saying that it's right, but the traveling fan is not really much of a consideration anymore for the powers that be. If anything, they are now just the cherry on top from a revenue perspective - average fan ticket sales are really nice to have, but the TV rights, sponsorships and luxury suite sales are really what drive revenue for these top tier events.

Note that conference championship games make a lot of TV money even before they sell a single ticket. An extra round of playoffs would make even more TV money on top of that even before they sell a single ticket. The thought that you need to drop conference championship games in order to hold a playoff is a quaint old notion that isn't rooted in the "basic economics" of today's college football revenue world. Any change to the system is going to be on top of what's in place now. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for there to be a trade-off - the power conferences can have their cake and eat it, too.

(09-10-2015 10:24 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  With all due respect, even schools like ND and OSU would never be able to sell out three neutral site games back to back to back, which is what you'd be looking at with an extra round.

That wouldn't happen. The first round games would be hosted by the top 4 seeds. For that matter, they could eventually move to a system where every game except the championship game is played on the home field of one of the two teams, as in the NFL and in the FCS football playoff.

(09-02-2015 06:55 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  THIS is why I think Notre Dame's going to eventually have to be all in with a conference. I think what we're headed towards is a world where the playoffs are expanded through the conference post seasons. Conference Championship games for the P4 will be your Round of 8. You could even potentially see conference semi-finals. Notre Dame not being in a conference, under this model, means they wouldn't have a shot at the title. They may have laughed in the past, they may have shot down a 6th ACC game before...but the world has changed around the Irish. Move, adapt, or die. Notre Dame's going to have to adapt or be left out...and I don't think they're going to want to be left out. I'm sorry, I get that Notre Dame still carries a lot of clout, but it's not nearly as much as they use to and we're moving towards a model where an entire CONFERENCE (SEC) doesn't necessarily carry the clout it once did.

I hate saying this as a Big Ten fan, but you're severely underestimating the clout that Notre Dame has here.

The power conferences absolutely do not care if Notre Dame makes the playoff or not. They would rather play Notre Dame in the playoff than the AAC or MWC champ 1000 times over. Heck, they would rather play Notre Dame in the playoff than a Big 12 champ that's not named Texas or Oklahoma.

There is only one thing that matters: Notre Dame is a revenue *generator* for the system. They make money for everyone else by being included in the playoff because the TV networks are the reason why the playoff exists... and they absolutely 100% want Notre Dame to be involved. They will reduce their payouts if Notre Dame isn't included... and the thought of taking a single cent of less revenue is the only thing that the power conferences care about. Those networks are paying (and praying) for the chance of Notre Dame vs. Alabama in the playoff instead of Baylor vs. Alabama (much less Boise State vs. Alabama).

As long as Notre Dame makes money for everyone else, then they'll have a place in the system. The only sin in the college football power structure is to be a revenue taker (as opposed to a revenue generator), which is why the G5 will always be ghettoized.

(09-10-2015 10:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 10:24 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  With all due respect, even schools like ND and OSU would never be able to sell out three neutral site games back to back to back, which is what you'd be looking at with an extra round.

That wouldn't happen. The first round games would be hosted by the top 4 seeds. For that matter, they could eventually move to a system where every game except the championship game is played on the home field of one of the two teams, as in the NFL and in the FCS football playoff.

This is another reason why I see the next development as CONFERENCE championship semi-finals instead of an expansion of the CFP to 8 teams.

CONFERENCE 'playoff' games in the Horseshoe, Bryant Denney and Autzen would be off the charts! And the Autonomy 5 conferences keep 100% of the revenue generated from the new round. Just imagine a weekend with:

(4)Nebraska v. (1)Ohio St. in Columbus
(3)Michigan St. v. (2)Wisconsin in Madison
(Winners to Indianapolis)

(4)Missouri v. (1)Alabama in Tuscaloosa
(3)Auburn v. (2)Georgia in Athens
(Winners to Atlanta)

(4)Stanford v. (1)UCLA in Pasadena
(3)Arizona v. (2)Oregon in Eugene
(Winners to Santa Clara)

(4)West Virginia v. (1)TCU in Ft. Worth
(3)Baylor v. (2)Oklahoma in Norman
(Winners to Arlington)

(4)Louisville v. (1)Florida St. in Tallahassee
(3)Clemson v. (2)Virginia Tech in Blacksburg
(Winners to Charlotte)

(09-10-2015 10:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 10:24 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  With all due respect, even schools like ND and OSU would never be able to sell out three neutral site games back to back to back, which is what you'd be looking at with an extra round.

That wouldn't happen. The first round games would be hosted by the top 4 seeds. For that matter, they could eventually move to a system where every game except the championship game is played on the home field of one of the two teams, as in the NFL and in the FCS football playoff.

That would be logical. The Big 12 liked that kind of system for 4.

But I think the bowls have too much influence. It will be as Frank suggested-quarterfinals NYD in the bowls.

(09-10-2015 11:15 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 10:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 10:24 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  With all due respect, even schools like ND and OSU would never be able to sell out three neutral site games back to back to back, which is what you'd be looking at with an extra round.

That wouldn't happen. The first round games would be hosted by the top 4 seeds. For that matter, they could eventually move to a system where every game except the championship game is played on the home field of one of the two teams, as in the NFL and in the FCS football playoff.

This is another reason why I see the next development as CONFERENCE championship semi-finals instead of an expansion of the CFP to 8 teams.

CONFERENCE 'playoff' games in the Horseshoe, Bryant Denney and Autzen would be off the charts! And the Autonomy 5 conferences keep 100% of the revenue generated from the new round. Just imagine a weekend with:

(4)Nebraska v. (1)Ohio St. in Columbus
(3)Michigan St. v. (2)Wisconsin in Madison
(Winners to Indianapolis)

(4)Missouri v. (1)Alabama in Tuscaloosa
(3)Auburn v. (2)Georgia in Athens
(Winners to Atlanta)

(4)Stanford v. (1)UCLA in Pasadena
(3)Arizona v. (2)Oregon in Eugene
(Winners to Santa Clara)

(4)West Virginia v. (1)TCU in Ft. Worth
(3)Baylor v. (2)Oklahoma in Norman
(Winners to Arlington)

(4)Louisville v. (1)Florida St. in Tallahassee
(3)Clemson v. (2)Virginia Tech in Blacksburg
(Winners to Charlotte)

With 8, if you win in the ccg, you are in. If you lose, unless you are unbeaten, you are probably out.

So you inflate the value of the ccgs plus add the extra round of playoffs. 8 with auto bids for the P5 is effectively a 13 team playoff.

Quote:There are just too many reasons why that won't happen unless it is a full blow dissolving of the conference. All the lawsuits as well as political repercussions alone make it nearly impossible.

I agree. The B12 dissolving isn't going to happen. They're not going to take all 10 and send 2 to the B1G, 2-4 to the SEC, and 2 to P12 or something, and the rest to G5 conferences. That'd really screw things up for basketball, too. B12 won't dissolve.

Quote:Kinda like the p-5 breakaway. Sounds good to say it but when you look at what it would take to make that happen it's clearly unlikely. g-5 schools are not going to quietly go form their own league outside the p-5.

Well, I think the conspiracy theory is that FBS would Isolate P5 and G5 -- not the G5 "leaving" to make their own (I don't think they could do that beyond lobbying the NCAA and pushing for it). But there has been growing P5 support amongst coaches (who are not marketing people) to do so. Nothing has indicated that the G5 conferences want to band together to leave! They want to be Included in with P5 as much as possible! :)

But I think the P5 isolating itself and NOT playing G5 teams, or even limiting to 1 OOC G5 game a year (and 2 others against other P5s; 9 conf games), won't happen. It'll take a lot for the SEC not to play FCS teams due to their hard Conf schedules and many southern smaller teams wanting a chance to get into the spotlight. The SEC definitely has a lot of pull in NCAA football. But that mood could weaken over the years, sure.

But the the bottom line is, making G5 a "D1-G5", with the P5 "D1-P5" and FCS "D1-CS" -- sounds good, although to me, doesn't sound good without question marks, which soon takes away from the sounds-good part. Especially if all 3 OOC games (assuming they limit to 3 due to conferences expanding a bit taking in BYU, Boise, and several others, making 9 Conf games the standard) are ONLY between P5 conferences, which many coaches are wanting.

It'd kill the underdog concept, kill bits of the concept of what makes the NCAA tourney in basketball so great, that football still somewhat has -- and Big Stacked conferences will make it less exciting.

Conferences too big, with too many teams making more teams never playing each other is going to have conference champs more based on schedule within (luck) combined with home-field and all that.

It's best to have a P6, IMO. There's 65 P-5 teams (64 in-conference + 1 ND; NO BYU, you are NOT P5).

But to add one, with a minimum of 10, you'd get the 10 best G5s. It'd make for a weaker, but P5-level conference -- but the geography combined with the viewer $$ they bring in wouldn't be so easy to pull off.

- (WEST) BYU, Boise State, Utah State, Colorado State, Air Force, Houston; (EAST) Marshall, Cincinnati, ECU, Northern Illinois, Memphis, Navy*

Due to there being no Indiana, Vandy, Kansas, or Colorado (CSU is better) of the conference, it'd be hard to say "Oh, no, this is just a Good mid-major conference."

You could end up adding a couple more G5s if B12 wanted to be actually 12 teams, which I'm assuming they will within 5 years (Temple, W. Kentucky, Ohio, Buffalo, GA-Southern as options).

With 77-79 P-Level teams, able to crop up to over 80 if all conferences were to expand to 14 teams -- it'd be hard to say they'd be "isolating" from G5. A MUCH more fan-acceptable separation.

But then with 40-something G5s left, a lot would be re-done, and IMO, would merge the top conference FCS with the G5s (like Missouri Valley) + better ones of some other conferences combined into another conf. And in that league, to have a 8-team playoff. But for an expanded P-Level Division, with 6 conferences? IMO, do what FCS does -- a 12 team playoff, with the top 4 getting a bye, and the bottom 8 having a 1st round to reduce it to 4, and go 4 x 4.

*Navy to make ND willing to go with the P-Level-Only level which is the main reason why they previously said they didn't want to go strictly P-Level only

(09-10-2015 11:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 10:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 10:24 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  With all due respect, even schools like ND and OSU would never be able to sell out three neutral site games back to back to back, which is what you'd be looking at with an extra round.

That wouldn't happen. The first round games would be hosted by the top 4 seeds. For that matter, they could eventually move to a system where every game except the championship game is played on the home field of one of the two teams, as in the NFL and in the FCS football playoff.

That would be logical. The Big 12 liked that kind of system for 4.

But I think the bowls have too much influence. It will be as Frank suggested-quarterfinals NYD in the bowls.

Wait... so we are going to have neutral site games in the QF, and then campus sites for the SF? The NYD bowls are going to want to be QF games? Very logical indeed...

And even if you scheduled the first round Xmas week, the ratings will still be bad. People are traveling and doing last minute shopping. You also have to squeeze in Army/Navy. Heisman weekend. Finals. The NFL wants a week 16 game on Saturday in prime time. Not to mention Wildcard weekend which would be incompatible with a SF round after NYD. There are too many obstacles to put another round in any of those weeks. That's why the season ends where it ends now, first week of December.

If it goes to 6 or 8 with an extra "quarterfinal" round, I think that round MUST be the weekend after the CCGs and it MUST be on college campuses.

Fans are tiring of travel to neutral sites. See Alabama and Wisconsin's game last Saturday. Both schools have neutral site games...plus almost yearly CCGs...plus bowl travel. (And remember that even HOME games aren't cheap for fans these days...)

Then, you can solidify bowl bids on the Sunday AFTER the second Sunday in December. The integrity of New Year's Day stays the same...plus the entire season is still resolved by mid-January, as it is now.

The CFP committee argued against "on campus" games for the CFP initially (citing poor Manhattan, Kansas, as unable to handle a media throng)...but the quarterfinals will not be the same media circus as a semifinal round. And if they want a visual spectacle with tons of excitement and minimal disruption to the traditional schedule, a quarterfinal after CCG weekend is the way to go.

(09-11-2015 06:18 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 11:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 10:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 10:24 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  With all due respect, even schools like ND and OSU would never be able to sell out three neutral site games back to back to back, which is what you'd be looking at with an extra round.

That wouldn't happen. The first round games would be hosted by the top 4 seeds. For that matter, they could eventually move to a system where every game except the championship game is played on the home field of one of the two teams, as in the NFL and in the FCS football playoff.

That would be logical. The Big 12 liked that kind of system for 4.

But I think the bowls have too much influence. It will be as Frank suggested-quarterfinals NYD in the bowls.

Wait... so we are going to have neutral site games in the QF, and then campus sites for the SF? The NYD bowls are going to want to be QF games? Very logical indeed...

And even if you scheduled the first round Xmas week, the ratings will still be bad. People are traveling and doing last minute shopping. You also have to squeeze in Army/Navy. Heisman weekend. Finals. The NFL wants a week 16 game on Saturday in prime time. Not to mention Wildcard weekend which would be incompatible with a SF round after NYD. There are too many obstacles to put another round in any of those weeks. That's why the season ends where it ends now, first week of December.

No it would be home sites for quarterfinals with the rest like now-semi-finals NYD, finals about a week later. Quarterfinals would be 2nd weekend in December. Army/Navy has been there less than 10 years. That is totally irrelevant.

But the power of the bowls is relevant, despite the problems quarterfinals on NYD creates.
#1 Teams are rusty with long layoffs
#2 3 straight neutral site games
#3 Working around the NFL playoffs
#4 Two semester issue, not that it is a big issue, but it gets mentioned a lot