The presidents are never going to agree to extend the season 3 weeks. absolutely never. This year the season ends on January 7. what you are saying would end it January 27. not going to happen....

(12-22-2018 02:03 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The presidents are never going to agree to extend the season 3 weeks. absolutely never. This year the season ends on January 7. what you are saying would end it January 27. not going to happen....

What is the basis for the absolutist comments? Jim Delany himself said that they would “never” have a 4-team playoff a few years ago because of the same arguments you see against an 8-team playoff (e.g. season would be extended for too long, regular season would be devalued, etc.) but now he’s the one bringing up a possible playoff expansion. Once again, it’s an arbitrary straw man - it’s not extending the season for 100-plus FBS schools, but rather 2 schools playing for the championship. This is also about TV money, and the single most valuable TV time slot in the month of January that isn’t being taken by the NFL playoffs happens to be that Sunday one week before the Super Bowl (where college football would have the sports scene all to itself, which is another objective that you mentioned yourself). If you want to argue that there’s a way to compress the length a bit further, then I’m all ears, but absolutist statements generally get knocked down.

You yourself said that the CFP won’t want to go head-to-head with the NFL Playoffs, which I actually agree with 100%. I’ve presented a format that would do just that while still being on days where teams and fans can reasonably travel and/or watch without any NFL playoff conflicts and maximizing TV revenue. If you can propose something better in a shorter timeframe that still achieves those objectives, once again, I’m all ears.

playing on MLK day would extend it for 4 teams that day even. Presidents don't have any interest in having this be a 2 semester sport.....

If you notice- the 4 team playoff didn't extend the season at all. I just think they would have a huge problem doing that.....

Men’s and women’s hockey and basketball are two semester sports. Why does that matter?

I agree with Tank. The pros outweigh the cons. Imagine a Snow Bowl semi-final pitting Texas at Notre Dame in January. Insane!

(12-22-2018 02:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  Men’s and women’s hockey and basketball are two semester sports. Why does that matter?

I agree with Tank. The pros outweigh the cons. Imagine a Snow Bowl semi-final pitting Texas at Notre Dame in January. Insane!

If they're going to 8- QF would be in December.... SF right around New Years and title game same date as has been for the last 15 years.....

And I think you're dreaming with campus games in January.

(12-22-2018 02:22 PM)stever20 Wrote:  playing on MLK day would extend it for 4 teams that day even. Presidents don't have any interest in having this be a 2 semester sport.....

If you notice- the 4 team playoff didn't extend the season at all. I just think they would have a huge problem doing that.....

That’s not true - the 4-team playoff did extend the season (albeit by a matter of days as opposed to weeks). Regardless, there are lots of variables that are supposedly important to the university presidents - value of the regular system, the preservation of the bowl system, the length of the season, avoiding conflicts with the NFL, etc. I’m not saying that the university presidents *want* to extend the season that far, but at the end of the day, the debate between an 8-team playoff vs. a 4-team playoff is, “What makes us the most money?” An 8-team playoff that doesn’t have revenue maximization dates on the calendar isn’t going to make the most money, which makes it less likely that expansion of the playoff would happen. *Something* has to give - the university presidents can’t save all of the things that they supposedly care about and have an 8-team playoff. The worry about football being a 2-semester sport for 2 or 4 teams is simply the most arbitrary one of the arguments against an 8-team playoff - that one is, by far, the easiest issue that goes by the wayside when there’s enough money involved.

Now, if you want to argue that the semifinals in an 8-team playoff will take place at around the time that the national championship game takes place now and then the final will take place 7-10 days later, I can see that as reasonable. That may actually what would happen if there’s an 8-team playoff and I’d be all for it as huge improvement to the current system. I just don’t think that makes as much money as the final being on that completely open Sunday one week before the Super Bowl. Call me crazy, but I generally bet on the system that makes the most money.

(12-22-2018 02:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-22-2018 02:22 PM)stever20 Wrote:  playing on MLK day would extend it for 4 teams that day even. Presidents don't have any interest in having this be a 2 semester sport.....

If you notice- the 4 team playoff didn't extend the season at all. I just think they would have a huge problem doing that.....

That’s not true - the 4-team playoff did extend the season (albeit by a matter of days as opposed to weeks). Regardless, there are lots of variables that are supposedly important to the university presidents - value of the regular system, the preservation of the bowl system, the length of the season, avoiding conflicts with the NFL, etc. I’m not saying that the university presidents *want* to extend the season that far, but at the end of the day, the debate between an 8-team playoff vs. a 4-team playoff is, “What makes us the most money?” An 8-team playoff that doesn’t have revenue maximization dates on the calendar isn’t going to make the most money, which makes it less likely that expansion of the playoff would happen. *Something* has to give - the university presidents can’t save all of the things that they supposedly care about and have an 8-team playoff. The worry about football being a 2-semester sport for 2 or 4 teams is simply the most arbitrary one of the arguments against an 8-team playoff - that one is, by far, the easiest issue that goes by the wayside when there’s enough money involved.

Now, if you want to argue that the semifinals in an 8-team playoff will take place at around the time that the national championship game takes place now and then the final will take place 7-10 days later, I can see that as reasonable. That may actually what would happen if there’s an 8-team playoff and I’d be all for it as huge improvement to the current system. I just don’t think that makes as much money as the final being on that completely open Sunday one week before the Super Bowl. Call me crazy, but I generally bet on the system that makes the most money.

it really didn't extend the season. The title game was always in that January 6-10 range(and think it could get as late as the 11th). It's now in the January 7-13 range- dependent on when the calendar falls. So maybe a day or 2- but that's it. Definitely not 3 weeks.. I think that's a big deal for the presidents.

Nothing has changed that dictates changing the playoff format except The Big Ten repeatedly getting left out. Why should The SEC and ACC vote to increase the number of teams in the playoffs?

The ACC asked to do away with divisions and Delaney refused it. Now he wants The ACC to support changing the playoffs to help his conference? No....

(12-22-2018 03:11 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Nothing has changed that dictates changing the playoff format except The Big Ten repeatedly getting left out. Why should The SEC and ACC vote to increase the number of teams in the playoffs?

The ACC asked to do away with divisions and Delaney refused it. Now he wants The ACC to support changing the playoffs to help his conference? No....

ACC can't do anything about it though. If G5, and the Big 12, Big Ten, and Pac 12 are in favor- it's going to happen....

Extending the season by ONE game for TWO teams MIGHT be an issue for SOME presidents... I certainly would call it a big deal, though.

(12-22-2018 02:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  Men’s and women’s hockey and basketball are two semester sports. Why does that matter?

I agree with Tank. The pros outweigh the cons. Imagine a Snow Bowl semi-final pitting Texas at Notre Dame in January. Insane!

Its a totally specious reason. Makes them look ridiculous and points how much of their arguments are just hiding their true reasons.

I don't know what their true reasons are, but two season sport isn't one of them.

(12-22-2018 03:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-22-2018 03:11 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Nothing has changed that dictates changing the playoff format except The Big Ten repeatedly getting left out. Why should The SEC and ACC vote to increase the number of teams in the playoffs?

The ACC asked to do away with divisions and Delaney refused it. Now he wants The ACC to support changing the playoffs to help his conference? No....

ACC can't do anything about it though. If G5, and the Big 12, Big Ten, and Pac 12 are in favor- it's going to happen....

Realistically, if the Big 10 and SEC are in favor, it will happen. G5 is along for the ride. The other 3 could veto, but aren't likely to. With the 4 team playoff, it didn't happen until Slive and Delany sat in a room and then told the rest of FBS how it would work.

There is absolutely no reason for The SEC or ACC to support expanding the playoffs. Of the 20 spots that have been awarded since the start of the CFP era, The SEC and ACC have accounted for 11 of the 20 spots. Simply don’t see any reason to give the other conferences more access.

While I would like to see the G5 get a realistic shot at the playoffs I like The Big Ten being left out regularly.

(12-22-2018 02:36 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-22-2018 02:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  Men’s and women’s hockey and basketball are two semester sports. Why does that matter?

I agree with Tank. The pros outweigh the cons. Imagine a Snow Bowl semi-final pitting Texas at Notre Dame in January. Insane!

If they're going to 8- QF would be in December.... SF right around New Years and title game same date as has been for the last 15 years.....

And I think you're dreaming with campus games in January.

The thing is that would effectively kill the bowl system. You have argued previously that the losers of any December semifinal games wouldn’t go to any bowls thereafter, which I agree with. There’s just no motivation for semifinal losers to play in a consolation bowl. At the same time, though, winners of those semifinal games would have to plan an extremely expensive holiday trip on even shorter notice than it is now, which means attendance for those bowl games are going to be less than ideal. That essentially takes the 8 best teams out of the bowl system, which could have the impact of killing th system overall for 70-plus other FBS schools. I don’t think that’s the intent of the university presidents at all.

Ultimately, all of the absolutist statements that you’ve made can’t be true if we’re going to an 8-team playoff. *Something* that the university presidents have argued that they “never” want to do will have to end up happening in an 8-team playoff. I tend to follow the money... and, IMHO, the path with the biggest potential financial boost is extending the season further. That also has the least shock to the current system compared to shifting playoff games to mid-December (and college football powers that be have shown to be incremental in their postseason moves).

(12-22-2018 03:49 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  There is absolutely no reason for The SEC or ACC to support expanding the playoffs. Of the 20 spots that have been awarded since the start of the CFP era, The SEC and ACC have accounted for 11 of the 20 spots. Simply don’t see any reason to give the other conferences more access.

Um, yes there IS a reason for the ACC to support it... they want to hold a conference championship game without divisions. The ACC divisions stink, but there's no way they go North/South (the only thing which might work). Make it a package deal: 8 playoff teams, P5 auto-bids, AND CCG without divisions... ACC and B1G co-sponsor it... just need one more P5 to vote for it (hello Big XII). GIT 'ER DONE!

(12-22-2018 04:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-22-2018 03:49 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  There is absolutely no reason for The SEC or ACC to support expanding the playoffs. Of the 20 spots that have been awarded since the start of the CFP era, The SEC and ACC have accounted for 11 of the 20 spots. Simply don’t see any reason to give the other conferences more access.

Um, yes there IS a reason for the ACC to support it... they want to hold a conference championship game without divisions. The ACC divisions stink, but there's no way they go North/South (the only thing which might work). Make it a package deal: 8 playoff teams, P5 auto-bids, AND CCG without divisions... ACC and B1G co-sponsor it... just need one more P5 to vote for it (hello Big XII). GIT 'ER DONE!

I mentioned it being a business decision earlier, which I believe it is. I don’t have a problem with The ACC supporting it if Delaney agrees to getting rid of divisions. If he doesn’t agree, however, we need to stand against expanding the playoffs. I rather enjoy watching The Big Ten whine about being left out of the playoffs.

(12-22-2018 04:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-22-2018 03:49 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  There is absolutely no reason for The SEC or ACC to support expanding the playoffs. Of the 20 spots that have been awarded since the start of the CFP era, The SEC and ACC have accounted for 11 of the 20 spots. Simply don’t see any reason to give the other conferences more access.

Um, yes there IS a reason for the ACC to support it... they want to hold a conference championship game without divisions. The ACC divisions stink, but there's no way they go North/South (the only thing which might work). Make it a package deal: 8 playoff teams, P5 auto-bids, AND CCG without divisions... ACC and B1G co-sponsor it... just need one more P5 to vote for it (hello Big XII). GIT 'ER DONE!

Cardinal Jim, your holiness, your stats point to the likelihood of the ACC getting TWO teams in an 8 team playoff! Well yes, that would require an upset, but nevertheless it doesn’t hurt the ACC.

Hokie, you’re the only Gobbler fan I “know” that is okay with Tech being in a hypothetical North Division (although I am pretty sure you’d prefer to get rid of divisions). Tech will see Wake, State, Clemson, and FSU much more without divisions; I think those are more compelling games for the Gobblers than the current Coastal, you may agree?

We won’t blame the Big Ten for their shortsightedness, after all, they passed on Notre Dame.

Get rid of the CCGs and you have something to work with that weekend.

College presidents will do exactly what ESPiN tells them to do. They all love da money!

(12-22-2018 03:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-22-2018 03:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-22-2018 03:11 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Nothing has changed that dictates changing the playoff format except The Big Ten repeatedly getting left out. Why should The SEC and ACC vote to increase the number of teams in the playoffs?

The ACC asked to do away with divisions and Delaney refused it. Now he wants The ACC to support changing the playoffs to help his conference? No....

ACC can't do anything about it though. If G5, and the Big 12, Big Ten, and Pac 12 are in favor- it's going to happen....

Realistically, if the Big 10 and SEC are in favor, it will happen. G5 is along for the ride. The other 3 could veto, but aren't likely to. With the 4 team playoff, it didn't happen until Slive and Delany sat in a room and then told the rest of FBS how it would work.

How many votes would it take to force a move?

I believe NCAA Management Council has it set up for 3 votes P5, 2 votes G5, 1 vote others for all issues. On football issues where there is autonomy is it 3 P5 to 2 G5 or is it 2 P5 to 1 G5?

If its 3 to 2, the G5 would only need one P5 conference to agree to have a simple majority. 13-12.

If its 2 to 1 the G5 will need two P5 conferences on board to make it happen. 9-6. Otherwise its 7-8 in favor of the G5.