(09-26-2023 01:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 01:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 12:41 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:41 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  Why not 128 teams? Then all but a few are happy?

Putting aside fairness, on these matters, always think like a TV executive.

Don’t think of it as the number of teams, but rather the number of *exclusive* time slots.

The CFP isn’t like the NCAA Tournament where anyone wants playoff games overlapping in the same time slot and/or having games on in the middle of a weekday or late at night. In reality, there are really only 4 time slots available on a weekend: 1 on Friday and 3 on Saturday. Thursday and Sunday are off-limits because of the NFL (and they’re already facing the NFL on Saturday at that point).

So, despite my general statement that “more playoff games = more TV money”, there is a point of diminishing returns in going from 12 to 16 because that means the first round game time slots would start overlapping with each other… and the TV networks aren’t paying billions of dollars for a playoff with games that overlap each other. Add in the devaluation of the P4 CCGs if the first round bye is no longer an incentive and you can see how 12 teams ended up being the Goldilocks porridge number: not too big, not too small, and just right to fit into the maximum value TV windows.

This is why I've said the answer plenty of times before is to include major bowl games along with the CFP contract to provide inventory which doesn't overlap like additional playoff games.

Perhaps go 4+8 but assign the other 5 champs a major bowl to be played in the NYD as a compromise.

Or keep 6+6 and make the 5th and 6th conference champ spots be play-in bowls before the first round of playoffs.

4+8 has zero chance. You can't designate the P4 in without all kinds of legal, political and perception headaches. And you can't guarantee the Big 10 champ will be a top 4 champ. I don't think anyone but SEC and ND like straight 12. 5+7 is most likely, but 6+6 may get a chance the next 2 years.

Yeah - I think the P4 (or P2) group knows well enough that there practically needs to be at least 1 spot that allows for a G5 champ to get into the playoff. It’s a classic “pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered” scenario.

I'm not predicting what they will do I'm just saying what I'd do if it were up to me.

5+7 is a awkward structure compared with 6+6 or 4+8 (straight 12 but highest 4 champions).

(09-26-2023 11:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:41 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:23 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  IMHO, the best way forward is to retain the 6+6 format for 2024 and 2025. Beginning in 2026, expand the CFP to 16 teams with a 6+10 format. This should appeal to everyone.

Why not 128 teams? Then all but a few are happy?

Putting aside fairness, on these matters, always think like a TV executive.

Don’t think of it as the number of teams, but rather the number of *exclusive* time slots.

The CFP isn’t like the NCAA Tournament where anyone wants playoff games overlapping in the same time slot and/or having games on in the middle of a weekday or late at night. In reality, there are really only 4 time slots available on a weekend: 1 on Friday and 3 on Saturday. Thursday and Sunday are off-limits because of the NFL (and they’re already facing the NFL on Saturday at that point).

So, despite my general statement that “more playoff games = more TV money”, there is a point of diminishing returns in going from 12 to 16 because that means the first round game time slots would start overlapping with each other… and the TV networks aren’t paying billions of dollars for a playoff with games that overlap each other. Add in the devaluation of the P4 CCGs if the first round bye is no longer an incentive and you can see how 12 teams ended up being the Goldilocks porridge number: not too big, not too small, and just right to fit into the maximum value TV windows.

There is one playoff format that I see as plausible besides 12 teams.
If the media companies continue to bleed out financially
And the Friday night first round game and the New YEars' Eve quarterfinal flop in the ratings....

Implement the plan to make Week Zero Week 1, move the CCGs to Thanksgiving weekend and distribute the rivalry games throughout the season. With a big handful on Labor Day Weekend.

5 champs plus 5 at larges.
Top conference champ gets a bye to the Semifinals on New YEars's Day.

3rd Saturday in December. Three first round games on campus. Winners advance

4th Saturday in December. Three conference champs host quarterfinals.

New YEars Day. Semifinals in the Rose and one other Bowl.

(09-26-2023 08:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:41 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:23 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  IMHO, the best way forward is to retain the 6+6 format for 2024 and 2025. Beginning in 2026, expand the CFP to 16 teams with a 6+10 format. This should appeal to everyone.

Why not 128 teams? Then all but a few are happy?

Putting aside fairness, on these matters, always think like a TV executive.

Don’t think of it as the number of teams, but rather the number of *exclusive* time slots.

The CFP isn’t like the NCAA Tournament where anyone wants playoff games overlapping in the same time slot and/or having games on in the middle of a weekday or late at night. In reality, there are really only 4 time slots available on a weekend: 1 on Friday and 3 on Saturday. Thursday and Sunday are off-limits because of the NFL (and they’re already facing the NFL on Saturday at that point).

So, despite my general statement that “more playoff games = more TV money”, there is a point of diminishing returns in going from 12 to 16 because that means the first round game time slots would start overlapping with each other… and the TV networks aren’t paying billions of dollars for a playoff with games that overlap each other. Add in the devaluation of the P4 CCGs if the first round bye is no longer an incentive and you can see how 12 teams ended up being the Goldilocks porridge number: not too big, not too small, and just right to fit into the maximum value TV windows.

There is one playoff format that I see as plausible besides 12 teams.
If the media companies continue to bleed out financially
And the Friday night first round game and the New YEars' Eve quarterfinal flop in the ratings....

Implement the plan to make Week Zero Week 1, move the CCGs to Thanksgiving weekend and distribute the rivalry games throughout the season. With a big handful on Labor Day Weekend.

5 champs plus 5 at larges.
Top conference champ gets a bye to the Semifinals on New YEars's Day.

3rd Saturday in December. Three first round games on campus. Winners advance

4th Saturday in December. Three conference champs host quarterfinals.

New YEars Day. Semifinals in the Rose and one other Bowl.

The problem is that the NFL has staked out the 4th Saturday in December, too. That’s why the semifinals are pushing into weeknights in January - the current proposed format has the least overlap with the NFL (and it’s still unavoidable in the 3rd Saturday of December.

I just don’t see the rivalry week games moving off of Thanksgiving weekend. The P2 get such monster ratings from Ohio State-Michigan and Auburn-Alabama (plus other rivalry games) that they’re not going to agree to mess with the regular season schedule. I still think we’ll end up with Week 0 being the new Week 1 but the season still ends with the CCGs on the first Saturday in December - everyone just gets two byes during the year.

(09-26-2023 06:45 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

A more direct quote from the AAC commissioner.

That’s actually quite a public concession from Aresco to say that he’s fine with 5+7. He’s not dying on the hill for 6+6 or 2 slots for G5 champs despite being so vocal about G5 representation. This makes me think that 5+7 is coming sooner rather than later.

(09-26-2023 10:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 06:45 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

A more direct quote from the AAC commissioner.

That’s actually quite a public concession from Aresco to say that he’s fine with 5+7. He’s not dying on the hill for 6+6 or 2 slots for G5 champs despite being so vocal about G5 representation. This makes me think that 5+7 is coming sooner rather than later.

I'm surprised. I guess the rest of the G5 has already given in. The MAC commissioner made a similar comment sometime in the last month. I would think he would want to try to keep 6-6 for the two years.

But realistically, with 10 of the Pac 12 going to the P4 and 4 AAC schools going to the P4 and just 2 Pac 12 moving down, the G5 are in the same position with a 5-7 as with a 6-6.

(09-26-2023 10:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 06:45 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

A more direct quote from the AAC commissioner.

That’s actually quite a public concession from Aresco to say that he’s fine with 5+7. He’s not dying on the hill for 6+6 or 2 slots for G5 champs despite being so vocal about G5 representation. This makes me think that 5+7 is coming sooner rather than later.

Even if it’s inevitable it’s a weird thing to just concede, unless this is more about trying to ensure any reconstruction attempts by the PAC doesn’t get recognized as anything above a G5 league.

(09-26-2023 06:03 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  According to Ross, Mike Aresco now supports going to a 5+7 format:

https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status...3375495554

Auditioning for a P5/4 Commish Job?

(09-27-2023 08:08 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 06:03 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  According to Ross, Mike Aresco now supports going to a 5+7 format:

https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status...3375495554

Auditioning for a P5/4 Commish Job?

Aresco is the entire reason there was a NY6 bowl in the CFP contract and the new 6+6 format to guarantee the G5 a playoff slot. You other G4 conferences need to thank the AAC and Aresco for what he has pulled off.

With the PAC gone, why not go with 5+6.

Top 5 conference champions get a first round bye. First round would be 3 games total. Against the 6 at-large teams. Then re-seed after the first round.

(09-27-2023 07:36 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 06:45 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

A more direct quote from the AAC commissioner.

That’s actually quite a public concession from Aresco to say that he’s fine with 5+7. He’s not dying on the hill for 6+6 or 2 slots for G5 champs despite being so vocal about G5 representation. This makes me think that 5+7 is coming sooner rather than later.

Even if it’s inevitable it’s a weird thing to just concede, unless this is more about trying to ensure any reconstruction attempts by the PAC doesn’t get recognized as anything above a G5 league.

That’s quite possible. I guess if we’re looking at it from the standpoint of the AAC’s self-interest, the one thing that they wouldn’t want is a “best of the rest” Pac-12 to form. That puts the AAC at risk of being poached of schools like Memphis. In contrast, a Pac-2/MWC merger would likely keep the AAC intact. Aresco used his words carefully there: this is a guy that absolutely loathes publicly acknowledging that power conferences exist at all, yet he mentioned that there’s a “P4” going forward. For as much as he likely can’t stand Sankey bringing up a “top 12” playoff format in every meeting, the last thing that Aresco would want is a reformulated Pac-12 having any hint of power status.

(09-26-2023 11:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 06:45 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

A more direct quote from the AAC commissioner.

That’s actually quite a public concession from Aresco to say that he’s fine with 5+7. He’s not dying on the hill for 6+6 or 2 slots for G5 champs despite being so vocal about G5 representation. This makes me think that 5+7 is coming sooner rather than later.

I'm surprised. I guess the rest of the G5 has already given in. The MAC commissioner made a similar comment sometime in the last month. I would think he would want to try to keep 6-6 for the two years.

But realistically, with 10 of the Pac 12 going to the P4 and 4 AAC schools going to the P4 and just 2 Pac 12 moving down, the G5 are in the same position with a 5-7 as with a 6-6.

The way I understand it, the 6-6 for the next 2 years is likely locked in since it requires a unanimous vote from all conferences to change it. I read his quote as talking about the next contract starting in 2025.

(09-27-2023 08:34 AM)goofus Wrote:  With the PAC gone, why not go with 5+6.

Top 5 conference champions get a first round bye. First round would be 3 games total. Against the 6 at-large teams. Then re-seed after the first round.

That’s one fewer playoff game, which means one fewer playoff game to sell for TV money.

The ENTIRE reason for playoff expansion is to maximize TV money.

Playoffs never get smaller once they expand, whether college or pro.

(09-27-2023 08:20 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 08:08 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 06:03 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  According to Ross, Mike Aresco now supports going to a 5+7 format:

https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status...3375495554

Auditioning for a P5/4 Commish Job?

Aresco is the entire reason there was a NY6 bowl in the CFP contract and the new 6+6 format to guarantee the G5 a playoff slot. You other G4 conferences need to thank the AAC and Aresco for what he has pulled off.

Chill out Why so touchy?

(09-27-2023 08:34 AM)goofus Wrote:  With the PAC gone, why not go with 5+6.

Top 5 conference champions get a first round bye. First round would be 3 games total. Against the 6 at-large teams. Then re-seed after the first round.

Interesting idea but I think it's unlikely the playoff gets smaller, and especially with an odd number.

(09-27-2023 08:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 07:36 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 06:45 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

A more direct quote from the AAC commissioner.

That’s actually quite a public concession from Aresco to say that he’s fine with 5+7. He’s not dying on the hill for 6+6 or 2 slots for G5 champs despite being so vocal about G5 representation. This makes me think that 5+7 is coming sooner rather than later.

Even if it’s inevitable it’s a weird thing to just concede, unless this is more about trying to ensure any reconstruction attempts by the PAC doesn’t get recognized as anything above a G5 league.

That’s quite possible. I guess if we’re looking at it from the standpoint of the AAC’s self-interest, the one thing that they wouldn’t want is a “best of the rest” Pac-12 to form. That puts the AAC at risk of being poached of schools like Memphis. In contrast, a Pac-2/MWC merger would likely keep the AAC intact. Aresco used his words carefully there: this is a guy that absolutely loathes publicly acknowledging that power conferences exist at all, yet he mentioned that there’s a “P4” going forward. For as much as he likely can’t stand Sankey bringing up a “top 12” playoff format in every meeting, the last thing that Aresco would want is a reformulated Pac-12 having any hint of power status.

The top 12 thing has enough opposition from pretty much everyone not named the SEC that it's not a real threat. What's a real threat to the very existence of the AAC is any kind of situation where the PAC retains any kind of power status relative to the other G5 leagues. It's an extremely interesting situation there, because obviously I don't think any of the other non-MWC G5 leagues would support them keeping any kind of "power" status, but I'm not certain what the MWC would feel about that. If a full reverse merger is going to be the answer the the MWC would want them to keep status, but if it's kinda up in the air if they want to do that or just try to raid the MWC then maybe the MWC wants them to lose that status as well just to kill hopes of them being able to raid.

(09-27-2023 08:38 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 08:20 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 08:08 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 06:03 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  According to Ross, Mike Aresco now supports going to a 5+7 format:

https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status...3375495554

Auditioning for a P5/4 Commish Job?

Aresco is the entire reason there was a NY6 bowl in the CFP contract and the new 6+6 format to guarantee the G5 a playoff slot. You other G4 conferences need to thank the AAC and Aresco for what he has pulled off.

Chill out Why so touchy?

Did Craig Thompson not exist or something? lol He was 1 of 4 main people who put together the 12-team CFP, along with Sankey, Swarbrick, & Bowlsby.

I guess if Thompson takes a ****, we should credit Aresco too.

The greed of the top conferences are immense. To be fair to the all conferences, it should be 8+8, but hey, got kick out the lesser conferences.

(09-27-2023 09:02 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 08:38 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 08:20 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 08:08 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 06:03 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  According to Ross, Mike Aresco now supports going to a 5+7 format:

https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status...3375495554

Auditioning for a P5/4 Commish Job?

Aresco is the entire reason there was a NY6 bowl in the CFP contract and the new 6+6 format to guarantee the G5 a playoff slot. You other G4 conferences need to thank the AAC and Aresco for what he has pulled off.

Chill out Why so touchy?

Did Craig Thompson not exist or something? lol He was 1 of 4 main people who put together the 12-team CFP, along with Sankey, Swarbrick, & Bowlsby.

I guess if Thompson takes a ****, we should credit Aresco too.

Didn’t exist.

(09-27-2023 08:38 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 08:34 AM)goofus Wrote:  With the PAC gone, why not go with 5+6.

Top 5 conference champions get a first round bye. First round would be 3 games total. Against the 6 at-large teams. Then re-seed after the first round.

That’s one fewer playoff game, which means one fewer playoff game to sell for TV money.

The ENTIRE reason for playoff expansion is to maximize TV money.

Playoffs never get smaller once they expand, whether college or pro.

Which is why they should keep the 6+6 but make champs 5 through 8 play in.

9th place champ eliminated in the regular season by its own mediocrity.

(09-27-2023 08:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 07:36 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 06:45 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

A more direct quote from the AAC commissioner.

That’s actually quite a public concession from Aresco to say that he’s fine with 5+7. He’s not dying on the hill for 6+6 or 2 slots for G5 champs despite being so vocal about G5 representation. This makes me think that 5+7 is coming sooner rather than later.

Even if it’s inevitable it’s a weird thing to just concede, unless this is more about trying to ensure any reconstruction attempts by the PAC doesn’t get recognized as anything above a G5 league.

That’s quite possible. I guess if we’re looking at it from the standpoint of the AAC’s self-interest, the one thing that they wouldn’t want is a “best of the rest” Pac-12 to form. That puts the AAC at risk of being poached of schools like Memphis. In contrast, a Pac-2/MWC merger would likely keep the AAC intact. Aresco used his words carefully there: this is a guy that absolutely loathes publicly acknowledging that power conferences exist at all, yet he mentioned that there’s a “P4” going forward. For as much as he likely can’t stand Sankey bringing up a “top 12” playoff format in every meeting, the last thing that Aresco would want is a reformulated Pac-12 having any hint of power status.

WSU/OSU (or Oliver Luck/Kirk Schultz if they're pulling the strings) are seeing their last hope of establishing a best-of-the-rest conference expire. Aresco is hammering the final nails on the PAC coffin, as Kliavkoff remains quietly on the sidelines. Aresco needs to protect the AAC; Memphis, Tulane, UTSA, USF, Navy (FB only), etc. would be strong candidates for a best-of-the-rest approach.