http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footbal...sion-lurks

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...-a-plusone

While some folks here have argued the "power conferences" will never go along with an 8-team or 16-team FBS football playoff, there seems to be growing support for the idea among school presidents because of the cash windfall such a playoff could produce. At minimum it appears a 4-team playoff will be instituted, which could generate as much as $400 million in TV and ticket sales revenue.

The article says that a four-team playoff might happen now, but the only authority person who says he's in favor of more than four teams right now is the chump at Arizona State.

Until people who have some authority and are not idiots publicly support a larger playoff, the smart bet would be that any playoff with more than four teams is still a ways down the road.

(02-20-2012 11:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The article says that a four-team playoff might happen now, but the only authority person who says he's in favor of more than four teams right now is the chump at Arizona State.

Until people who have some authority and are not idiots publicly support a larger playoff, the smart bet would be that any playoff with more than four teams is still a ways down the road.

If the "Idiots" would just seed the top eight teams into the four BCS Bowl Games and play them all on New Years Day, we would then have a four team playoff with the four winners. Its thats simple.

(02-20-2012 11:15 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(02-20-2012 11:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The article says that a four-team playoff might happen now, but the only authority person who says he's in favor of more than four teams right now is the chump at Arizona State.

Until people who have some authority and are not idiots publicly support a larger playoff, the smart bet would be that any playoff with more than four teams is still a ways down the road.

If the "Idiots" would just seed the top eight teams into the four BCS Bowl Games and play them all on New Years Day, we would then have a four team playoff with the four winners. Its thats simple.

Not quite that simple because something that is not in the open but definitely being discussed -- it's implied in that article -- is how to cut the bowls out and get to the point where the schmucks in loud blazers are not siphoning away so much of the money in postseason college football.

The "Big Ten proposal" is the most public shot at the bowls we've seen so far -- the idea is for two semifinal games, hosted by the #1 and 2 teams, and a final that is sold to the highest bidder a la the Super Bowl. The message is clear: When there is a playoff, the schools are keeping the money for themselves and the bowl guys who buy lap dances and serve lots of drinks on Caribbean cruises are not invited to take any of the money.

nt

There will be no playoff until the Big 5 are allowed to split off into their own division and don't have to be forced to share the money or TV appeal they generate with the other Johnny-come-latelies.

(02-21-2012 12:06 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  There will be no playoff until the Big 5 are allowed to split off into their own division and don't have to be forced to share the money or TV appeal they generate with the other Johnny-come-latelies.

Just which "Johnny-come-latelies" would those be? Wyoming, which started playing college football in 1892, two years before Texas A&M? Or perhaps New Mexico and Colorado State, which also began play in 1892? Do you mean Tulane, which played its first game in 1893? Or Tulsa or Marshall, which fielded their first teams in 1895?

There are plenty of schools outside the "Big 5" with over 100 years of college football history. Disrespect them if you want to for their small budgets or small fan bases compared to the mega-programs, but not for being late to the party.

I still don't see how they exist on their own, if they break away from the NCAA, how do they fill their schedules... those "Johnny-come-latelies" play 2 or 3 games on every major conference team's schedule. Look how hard it is to fill schedules with 124 teams to choose from... how do they do it with half that... plus for most teams, there goes the 9-10-11 win seasons without the easy games!

I think the process is still years away. We need to see what the NCAA does with this so called "Alliance" first. If they allow them to have a semi-final game and a championship game. Then all bets are off. The ACC and SEC will quickly merge and do the same.

(02-21-2012 01:26 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 12:06 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  There will be no playoff until the Big 5 are allowed to split off into their own division and don't have to be forced to share the money or TV appeal they generate with the other Johnny-come-latelies.

Just which "Johnny-come-latelies" would those be? Wyoming, which started playing college football in 1892, two years before Texas A&M? Or perhaps New Mexico and Colorado State, which also began play in 1892? Do you mean Tulane, which played its first game in 1893? Or Tulsa or Marshall, which fielded their first teams in 1895?

There are plenty of schools outside the "Big 5" with over 100 years of college football history. Disrespect them if you want to for their small budgets or small fan bases compared to the mega-programs, but not for being late to the party.

+2. Good response to one of the most idiotic statements I've read on this board and that's saying a lot. A lot of the fans of more popular programs seem to believe it's as simple as taking their ball and going somewhere else. There will be no breaking away. They might as well roll out the welcome mat to mass lawsuits and government investigation. Also if they try to exist outside of the NCAA you might as well kiss goodbye the padding of the Win column via games vs the MAC, Sunbelt and FCS programs. 10thmountain's and other similar posts on the "break away" are so off-base it's not funny.

Just because we don't have legions of un-educated T-shirt fans doesn't mean we're "Johnny come lately's". Like you said, schools like CSU, Wyoming, Fresno St, Tulane, ECU, USM, Tulsa, etc. were NEVER in a lower division of college football and I don't expect that to change. They'll have a really hard time writing a set of criteria that shuts so many schools out.

If by "jonny come lately" 10thmountain means UAB, FIU, FAU, USF, UCF and Boise, then I'd agree with the description but not the fact that it's as simple as breaking away.

The "Big Conferences" can't draw any sort of line without leaving out a few of their own (Duke, Baylor, Vandy, Wake, etc) and they know it. The BCS was an attempt but uppity teams like TCU and Boise kept screwing things up (and those pesky lawsuits). As long as schools recieve government funds that can't just blantantly segregate themselves for the sake of ESPN $$$$.

You have at least two things going on here.

There is the faction of the "power" schools that wants to limit access to the big game by the smaller and less well funded schools. They want the bowls that favor them to continue in some fashion and only want their schools invited to compete for the mnc.

Then there are the other schools and conferences that want a fully open playoff system where Middle TN for example has just as much chance to play by winning the SunBelt conference as Ohio State does for winning the Big Ten conference.

The second scenario isn't likely to be happening anytime soon as the power conferences will always control the situation.

Right now, schools at the top play non conference games against "lower" level schools from both the 1-A conferences and FCS conferences. This likely won't change--but it could. There is a movement for the major conferences to play more in-conference games which they are already doing for example the ACC, Big XII going to 9 conference games. If the conferences continue growing this could change further, especially since the networks want to put the power conference schools on tv and not the lesser known, lower funded programs.

What will be interesting to see is how a plus one or four team playoff will be determined--to get 11 conferences to agree obviously there will have to be some inclusion, but in reality only four conferences will be getting their champions or highest rated teams in most years.

(02-21-2012 06:17 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  I still don't see how they exist on their own, if they break away from the NCAA, how do they fill their schedules... those "Johnny-come-latelies" play 2 or 3 games on every major conference team's schedule. Look how hard it is to fill schedules with 124 teams to choose from... how do they do it with half that... plus for most teams, there goes the 9-10-11 win seasons without the easy games!

I've seen this brought up in some other places, but I don't think this is a legit concern. If the power conferences break off on their own, they can completely reset the rules. They can play 16 games if they want to. They can play exhibition games against Division III schools or semipro teams (the way the NCAA lets basketball teams do now) so that the power schools can get extra home games to raise more revenue. They can pay players or provide some other type of compensation system. The point is that whatever rules are in place for the NCAA right now will be completely thrown out the window. As a result, expectations will be adjusted, too. Getting easy wins won't matter as much any more because the power conferences will be in a tighter 64-70 school structure, so you might see equivalents of this year's 9-7 Giants team in the NFL pop up at the college level and win championships. Cupcakes won't matter anymore in an NFL-style system.

Now, could breaking off completely bring in big-time antitrust scrutiny? Absolutely! For reasons that I've stated elsewhere, the BCS is not an antitrust violation when you get to what courts care about. Antitrust is NOT about fairness or equal access. Instead, antitrust is about ensuring that actions aren't taken to subvert the free market. When you get down to it, the BCS pretty much reflects what the free market would do. In fact, the two conferences most aggrieved by the BCS are actually the Big Ten and SEC because they would actually be getting 3 or 4 top level bowl bids per year in a pure free market system where the bowls could freely choose who they want. The only basis that the non-AQ schools have against the BCS for an antitrust claim is that there's collusion between the bowls and AQ conferences. While the non-AQ schools can probably prove that there's collusion, the problem is showing damages since if there wasn't such collusion, the non-AQ schools might actually have LESS access to those bowl games (as those bowls left to their individual devices, which is a pure free market, would likely just always pick the most high profile teams). An antitrust "win" against the BCS would be like the USFL "win" against the NFL in the 1980s - the BCS and NFL might have violated the law, but there weren't any damages since the non-AQs and USFL respectively wouldn't have made any more money even if the BCS and NFL didn't collude.

In contrast, the collusion that would occur if the power conferences broke off on their own would bring up some pretty heavy damages concerns. In particular, the NCAA Tournament is a large revenue generator for all conferences and the value of that property would plummet without the power conferences involved. So, that's the big difference. The BCS might feature collusion, but it really isn't taking anything away from the non-AQs in the sense that those bowls would never choose non-AQs in a pure free market. The power conferences splitting off, though, would take away a ton of revenue from the NCAA Tournament alone. That's a much stronger case for the schools left behind.

2 huge factors here that very well MAY happen & should not be readily be swept aside (& will help the Non-AQs):

1.Large pot to be split much more evenly w/ non-AQs--NCAA may have
close to $400-500M to distribute, much more $$ will flow to ALL
schools (not 55 non-AQ schools splitting 9% of $180 million = only
$294K). Hence, "The future promises more money as well
as a bigger cut."

2. Not just the impending loss of AQ status {Cowen made some excellent pts, non-AQs earned way into BCS bowls}, but the fact that ex-SEC commish Kramer (and most Conf commish (& ND)) will favor a plus 4 that is includes only conference winners. Regarding non-AQ access, "That door cannot close with a plus-one. "

If the above happens, non-AQs will have the access (bowls & possible plus 4 if undefeated) they have longed for & more $$, their opportunity will be there...that's all they want. This is huge, IMHO...

Playoffs:

1) It will happen because the SEC thinks it can achieve an 8 team all SEC playoff for the NC one day

2) It will happen because the PAC, ACC, and BIGs already saw a 2 team all SEC playoff for the NC this year

(02-21-2012 11:05 AM)ConanX Wrote:  Playoffs:

1) It will happen because the SEC thinks it can achieve an 8 team all SEC playoff for the NC one day

2) It will happen because the PAC, ACC, and BIGs already saw a 2 team all SEC playoff for the NC this year

Nope. NOTHING about this has to do what's happening on the field. This is fan-based perception.

It's about $$$$$$$$$ and control. That's what the schools care about.

There will probably be a larger pot for all to split, but to think the power conferences aren't getting most of that as opposed to splitting it evenly with the CUSA/MWC, MAC, Sunbelt, etc. would be naive.

Most of that money will still flow to the power schools/conferences and if there is a four team playoff you aren't going to see a non AQ no matter what form they take in the future that plays a non AQ schedule getting the same consideration as a power conference program.

Depending on the form of the new system, there will likely be more consolidation of the power conferences so everyone has a chance at the MNC and money--everyone included at the "top" that is.

(02-21-2012 10:46 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The BCS might feature collusion, but it really isn't taking anything away from the non-AQs in the sense that those bowls would never choose non-AQs in a pure free market. The power conferences splitting off, though, would take away a ton of revenue from the NCAA Tournament alone. That's a much stronger case for the schools left behind.

That suggests a new football-only athletic association for the big boys. Leave the other sports in the NCAA so the smaller schools with 1,000-seat gyms can continue to get their trickle of hoops money and sell the dream of March Madness. Create a set of rules, payment for players, playoff structure, recruiting, whatever, that apply only to football.

(02-21-2012 06:17 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  I still don't see how they exist on their own, if they break away from the NCAA, how do they fill their schedules... those "Johnny-come-latelies" play 2 or 3 games on every major conference team's schedule. Look how hard it is to fill schedules with 124 teams to choose from... how do they do it with half that... plus for most teams, there goes the 9-10-11 win seasons without the easy games!

There are enough bottom feeders in every conference to fill that aspect of the schedule. And as such a split would depress the value of a loss such that you could see a greater number of TX v. ND type games.

(02-21-2012 11:08 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 11:05 AM)ConanX Wrote:  Playoffs:

1) It will happen because the SEC thinks it can achieve an 8 team all SEC playoff for the NC one day

2) It will happen because the PAC, ACC, and BIGs already saw a 2 team all SEC playoff for the NC this year

Nope. NOTHING about this has to do what's happening on the field. This is fan-based perception.

It's about $$$$$$$$$ and control. That's what the schools care about.

You are correct but your missing my point. The Big Conferences will all agree to a playoff for a chance at more $$$$ but with different ways of looking at it. The SEC sees a chance to grab more $$$$ by placing more teams in a play off scenerio than it can get in the current system. The other "big conferences" saw how they were left out of the NC this year and think the playoffs are a way to get their teams in and thus get more $$$$. These guy will still try and screw over the currently labled "non-AQs" (and the nBE in my opinion.) by coming up with a way to make it difficult if not impossible to get into the playoffs if you are outside of the "Big 5". Problem for this is that they tried this with the BCS and it didn't work. They can't come up with any criteria that does leave some of their own out in the cold (aka Duke).