This article hasn't been published yet. It'll go live next month on the website I write for. I just wanted to get your thoughts on this now.



With the college football regular season wrapping up this week and conference championship games just around the corner, the BCS picture is getting clearer. Of course, this is the last year that just two teams will be selected to play for the championship. The College Football Playoff (or CFP) will be the new sheriff in town when 2014 rolls around.

We might know who’s on the committee now and we might know the schedule for the games the next six years. We even know that there will be four CFP polls that are released before the selection committee makes its announcement.

But what we don’t know is this: which criteria will the committee use to select their teams? Ranking, record, quality of competition, conference championship all have been mentioned, but no definite weighting of these factors has been determined.

Follow the money though—which makes the college football world go ‘round, after all—and you’ll surmise with me that the conference championship distinction is going to play a major role. A championship in one of the major five conferences is even more influential.

If you remember a few years back, the conference championship game (or CCG) money was purportedly a driving force in getting to 12 teams. It was an easy way for conferences to make millions more each year, simply by staging their own game.

Those lucrative games though often were stinkers. Teams barely above .500 were sneaking into the games because of ineligible teams above them or stacked opposite divisions. Fan bases that were expecting national titles often skipped the games because of a disappointing 9-3 team or a lackluster match-up.

Still, the TV networks ponied up the money. Money that the conferences didn’t have to share with anyone—no BCS busters, no mid-majors, no Cinderellas.

Now the conferences have consolidated some of that power—obliterating the Big East and WAC while weakening conferences like the AAC and Mountain West. And the only thing on their minds is how can we make more money.

They’ve created their own bowls, they re-packaged the college championship structure (the new CFP), and they might even reform or blow-up the NCAA altogether in January. But one surefire way to increase revenue is to make these conference championship games—which they own already—worth more. And the way to do that is to make the winner of the game a priority for CFP selection.

In some cases, the CCGs might be de facto quarterfinal games. In playoff terminology, that’s going to drive ratings off the chart.

Let me use last year’s Pac-12 scenario as the perfect example. Stanford (10-2) beat Oregon (11-1) in the regular season to get the Pac-12 North’s CCG bid. They also lost to No. 1 Notre Dame and were upset at Washington, which meant they were ranked three spots below Oregon heading into the CCG vs. No. 18 UCLA (8-4).

Even though Oregon was widely regarded as the superior team, I believe that our CFP selection committee will be mandated to make Stanford (who beat UCLA 27-24 and moved to No. 6 in the final BCS poll) one of the four playoff participants.

If Oregon gets the CFP bid without playing—without winning a conference championship game—the Pac-12 championship game essentially means nothing. Oregon can sit at home at stay at No. 5 in the rankings, guaranteed to rise after the SEC CCG loser drops. Stanford has no meaningful incentive to beat UCLA for a second time in two weeks.

However, if Stanford can assure their berth with a win or lose their bid (and open up an avenue for Oregon or some other “at large” to sneak in), that same Pac-12 CCG has unbelievably huge implications. Not just for the Pac-12 conference, but for the whole country. The Pac-12 CCG—which no one really cared about nationally last year—would become one of the ten biggest games of the season. Instantly.

And big games equal big ratings.

There needs to be a line, of course. No. 18 UCLA should never be able to play its way into a 4-team playoff with a 9-4 record (their theoretical record if they had beaten Stanford). I doubt the CFP committee will communicate that line, simply because it should vary from year to year.

Could 9-3 Nebraska (ranked No. 12 in the BCS before last year’s Big Ten CCG meltdown) or 10-2 Florida State (ranked No. 13 before its close win over 6-6 Georgia Tech in the ACC CCG) play its way in with a convincing win? Maybe, if that cutoff line were nebulous. And if the polls themselves are skewed towards potential CCG participants, that might change the entire conversation, right?

It would behoove the power conferences to make their CCGs as important as possible. And with this much money at stake, you can bet that there will be preference given to CCG winners in the CFP selection committee.

The selection committee is simply the poll system with another name. The committee is so large that it's inevitable. One poll is coaches, one is reporters, and this one is Condoleezza Rice, Archie Manning, and some ADs.

Thus, it will be driven by the same factors as the current polls. And we all know what those are.

Hell, I've been saying this for over a year and whenever I've said it over here folks have said I was nuts and thought I was talking crazy.

One factor that will make it different is that they will discuss the teams. So that will drive out some of the unreasonable biases.

And there are enough people it won't be driven by one or two like smaller groups can be (5-7 people).

The SI playoff simulation group picked Oregon, not Stanford.

yep, and Florida.

I still think that the notion that fans are going to travel to three consecutive neutral site games is patently absurd and the height of arrogance. It will not work. Within five years, almost all conference championship games (the SEC will likely be the outlier) will be played on the campus of the highest rated team within that conference.

Just think about it for a second. Let's say that the system was in place this year and you are a fan of Florida State.

The Seminoles have legitimate national championship aspirations - especially in a four team playoff scenario. Tell me, who in their right mind is going to pay all of that money to go to Charlotte knowing that if they win that game (and the Noles will be heavily favored to do so), they are headed to New Orleans for their next game? And if they win that game, they would play in Dallas for the national championship.

That makes no sense. People will simply save their money and roll the dice on Dallas.

Duh!

How many people have that kind of money and are that passionate about their team? Remember, we are talking about ENORMOUS stadia here, not 20K seat arenas (most of which do not sell out and are primarily filled by locals - completely different model than football).

I honestly don't understand the mentality of the BCS power brokers? They are trying to split the baby here to some degree and marry the old bowl system with a more modern, potentially more lucrative, playoff system and that is definitely not going to work.

Most people don't have unlimited resources and/or unlimited free time and they are not going to travel to three consecutive road games. This system is doomed to fail.

I completely disagree with the OP. In his scenario 2 years ago Alabama would have been left out of the playoffs. Just imagine the outrage when a team like Bama is left out and a UCLA with 4 losses beats an undefeated Oregon in the CCG and gets in the Playoffs over Oregon and Bama.

I don't think it will always take precedent. The only way it will is if the P5 becomes the P4, and D-IA splits from the rest of FBS.

I don't think it ever will. TV will NEVER allow a situation like 2 years ago where Alabama was #2 and for them to not be included in the playoff. NEVER.

(10-28-2013 08:29 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I still think that the notion that fans are going to travel to three consecutive neutral site games is patently absurd and the height of arrogance. It will not work. Within five years, almost all conference championship games (the SEC will likely be the outlier) will be played on the campus of the highest rated team within that conference.

Just think about it for a second. Let's say that the system was in place this year and you are a fan of Florida State.

The Seminoles have legitimate national championship aspirations - especially in a four team playoff scenario. Tell me, who in their right mind is going to pay all of that money to go to Charlotte knowing that if they win that game (and the Noles will be heavily favored to do so), they are headed to New Orleans for their next game? And if they win that game, they would play in Dallas for the national championship.

That makes no sense. People will simply save their money and roll the dice on Dallas.

Duh!

How many people have that kind of money and are that passionate about their team? Remember, we are talking about ENORMOUS stadia here, not 20K seat arenas (most of which do not sell out and are primarily filled by locals - completely different model than football).

I honestly don't understand the mentality of the BCS power brokers? They are trying to split the baby here to some degree and marry the old bowl system with a more modern, potentially more lucrative, playoff system and that is definitely not going to work.

Most people don't have unlimited resources and/or unlimited free time and they are not going to travel to three consecutive road games. This system is doomed to fail.

I agree. I think you have a lot of college administrators and network people thinking their product will get over like the pro-system with the "legacy" of these "beloved" bowls.

I don't know who they think is going to enjoy this system, but it's not the typical college football fan. And not even close to being in touch with the student population.

CCGs need to mean AQ if they are to mean anything at all. Nothing less of assured championship implications are going to cut it. I can picture the Dan Wetzel sob pieces right now...

(10-28-2013 08:29 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I still think that the notion that fans are going to travel to three consecutive neutral site games is patently absurd and the height of arrogance. It will not work. Within five years, almost all conference championship games (the SEC will likely be the outlier) will be played on the campus of the highest rated team within that conference.

Just think about it for a second. Let's say that the system was in place this year and you are a fan of Florida State.

The Seminoles have legitimate national championship aspirations - especially in a four team playoff scenario. Tell me, who in their right mind is going to pay all of that money to go to Charlotte knowing that if they win that game (and the Noles will be heavily favored to do so), they are headed to New Orleans for their next game? And if they win that game, they would play in Dallas for the national championship.

That makes no sense. People will simply save their money and roll the dice on Dallas.

Duh!

How many people have that kind of money and are that passionate about their team? Remember, we are talking about ENORMOUS stadia here, not 20K seat arenas (most of which do not sell out and are primarily filled by locals - completely different model than football).

I honestly don't understand the mentality of the BCS power brokers? They are trying to split the baby here to some degree and marry the old bowl system with a more modern, potentially more lucrative, playoff system and that is definitely not going to work.

Most people don't have unlimited resources and/or unlimited free time and they are not going to travel to three consecutive road games. This system is doomed to fail.

I agree with you with respect to the average fan. However, these conference championship games and ultimately bowls aren't made for the average fan in mind. They are events catered to (1) TV, (2) corporate sponsors and (3) the tourism industry. Conferences aren't worried about selling these tickets to the average fans. The main dollars that, say, the ACC is getting from its championship game are the boost in TV revenue from ESPN, the sale of premium tickets and suites to conference sponsors and Charlotte-based banks, law firms, accounting firms and other businesses that buy up tickets for clients, and the upfront guaranteed payment that the City of Charlotte, the Panthers and other local interests kick in for the right to hold the game. It's the same calculation for the bowls. This is about securing all of those businesses in Dallas, LA, Phoenix or wherever else the playoff games are going to be played to pay for the premium seats that are truly high revenue. That simply isn't possible at the college level even in the most revenue rich on-campus stadium locales like Alabama or Ohio State.

So, there might be a certain point where even this is too much and, as a result, you'll see a reversion to on-campus sites. However, I wouldn't bank on that happening anytime soon at all. The big dollars are in the corporate suites and premium seat sales, which are what are in abundance in top tier NFL stadiums. The sale of one corporate suite can compensate for literally hundreds of "regular" tickets. That's why every fight over new stadiums at the pro level for the past 25 years has been 100% about having enough of those premium seats - this is why Oklahoma City has an NBA team while Seattle doesn't and Jacksonville has an NFL team while Los Angeles doesn't. The regular fans are mostly TV props for these games at this point - they aren't where the major revenue comes from.

I'm not saying that it's a good thing that these games might be played in antiseptic atmospheres that might as well be enclosed TV studios, but there are a heck of a lot of financial considerations beyond the typical traveling fan that are heavily in play here.

(10-28-2013 09:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I don't think it ever will. TV will NEVER allow a situation like 2 years ago where Alabama was #2 and for them to not be included in the playoff. NEVER.

And that's why there will always be controversy, no matter how many teams are used to determine a champion.

Using this fictional scenario, assume only top four undefeated:

1. West Virginia
2. Texas A&M
3. Texas
4. USC
5. Michigan
6. LSU
7. Miami
8. Notre Dame
9. Georgia
10. Florida State
19. Oregon State
24. Iowa

Texas beats West Virginia in the Big XII championship game, Georgia upsets A&M in the SEC title game and FSU tops Miami in the ACC championship. USC and Michigan lose their championship games to Oregon State and Iowa. This would leave only Texas undefeated and the P5 conference champs would be Texas, Georgia, FSU, Iowa and Oregon State. In a conference champs only scenario, which team gets left out? If non-conference champs are allowed and the committee feels former No.1 West Virginia is still deserving a a spot in the four-team playoff, then why not former No. 2 Texas A&M? Would former No. 6 LSU have a gripe, since they certainly would now be ranked in the top 4 with Michigan and USC losing? You know that Notre Dame would be claiming the rights to a spot since five teams ranked above them lost. Would LSU or Texas A&M be selected instead of SEC Champ Georgia?

Every year they have a four-team playoff, there will be teams complaining that they got the shaft. Then they will expand the playoffs to eight teams and there will still be teams complaining that they should have been included. Until there is a 16-team playoff, they can't be certain to include all teams that could be deemed "playoff worthy" by everyone. And even then there will be complaints, though fewer. Then they will have watered down the value of the regular season to such a degree that they will be in danger of killing the golden goose. The money required to fund such a system will be astronomical and, on an individual school basis, the funds required to compete at the highest level will be huge.

(10-28-2013 10:00 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  CCGs need to mean AQ if they are to mean anything at all. Nothing less of assured championship implications are going to cut it. I can picture the Dan Wetzel sob pieces right now...

I agree with you on this point. That's going to drive a lot of 8-team playoff talk in the future. The power conferences have a pretty big incentive to do since they'd essentially be controlling de facto playoff games (the conference championship games) all for themselves (meaning they get 100% of that revenue without having to share with the Gang of Five).

(10-28-2013 08:29 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I still think that the notion that fans are going to travel to three consecutive neutral site games is patently absurd and the height of arrogance. It will not work. Within five years, almost all conference championship games (the SEC will likely be the outlier) will be played on the campus of the highest rated team within that conference.

This has been my argument for quite a while. Now Frank makes a point that selling tickets itself won't be an issue due to local business and such, but he is also missing the point that if the fans stop travelling en masse, those payouts will go down, and TV will have to make up the difference. There is a reason why the there is only one neutral site game in all of professional sports (non-all-star or preseason).

but in terms of a neutral site CCG, the SEC works because Atlanta is within reasonable driving distance of just about every fanbase save for maybe Texas A&M and Missouri, where it's on the long end of drives (12 and 10 hours respectively). The Big Ten championship game should have this advantage, but I wonder if the weather has something to do with it. But the ACC, the PAC 12, and probably an expanded Big 12, can have sites close their core teams, but not the entire conference.

(10-28-2013 11:50 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  The Big Ten championship game should have this advantage, but I wonder if the weather has something to do with it.

I don't think it matters much when it comes to Indy. Everything is "walkable" here. Hotels, convention center, stadium, entertainment... Not much outside walking is required.

The weather for last year's game was rather toasty for December. Some fans were eating outside on decks, yet attendance was way down from the previous year. Of, course, that kind of weather can't be dialed up every year.

Wisconsin potentially making its third trip in a row to the Rose Bowl combined with "average" Nebraska and Wisconsin rankings had much more to do with it. And no doubt if given a choice between the CCG or the Rose Bowl, many fans are going to hold out for sunny SoCal.

(10-28-2013 12:25 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 11:50 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  The Big Ten championship game should have this advantage, but I wonder if the weather has something to do with it.

I don't think it matters much when it comes to Indy. Everything is "walkable" here. Hotels, convention center, stadium, entertainment... Not much outside walking is required.

The weather for last year's game was rather toasty for December. Some fans were eating outside on decks, yet attendance was way down from the previous year. Of, course, that kind of weather can't be dialed up every year.

Wisconsin potentially making its third trip in a row to the Rose Bowl combined with "average" Nebraska and Wisconsin rankings had much more to do with it. And no doubt if given a choice between the CCG or the Rose Bowl, many fans are going to hold out for sunny SoCal.

Yeah, I think it will end up being a different story with Ohio State likely going to the Big Ten championship game this year (both in terms of being a short drive from Indy and there's still at least a chance at the national title). Plus, the ACC championship game attendance has been fine when it has been in Charlotte - it was when they put the game in Florida locations that caused issues.

That's probably the main thing for picking a championship game location: don't get cute to appease particular schools or the geographic outliers. You *have* to keep it close to the core to be consistent from year-to-year and where you have the best access to the widest range of fans. The SEC perfected that formula in Atlanta. For the Big Ten, that means either Indianapolis or Chicago can really be the only options (the former being the geographic center of the league while the latter is the alumni center). For the ACC, it means being in Charlotte. For the Big 12 (if it ever gets back up to 12 again), it means being in Dallas.

The Pac-12 is one place that I'd agree that it makes more sense to have on-campus sites - the closest thing that it has to a geographic core is LA, and that's a redundant location with the Rose Bowl. I think that the other 4 power conferences have workable locations for neutral sites (provided that they keep them where they are).

I believe that the next step, after the 4-team playoff is established, is to add a play-in game the week after the CCG's at the home of the higher seed.

First the committee picks the top 5 seeds.

Any of those 5 teams who won their CCG automatically gets a high seed than those who did not. Seeds #4 & #5 will be in the play-in game. This means teams like ND last year, Alabama 2 years ago, and Baylor this year if they go undefeated, would have to win the play-in game to make the final 4.

Eventually the play-in game round will be exapanded to 8 teams and the CCG will be totally elimanated.

(10-28-2013 10:43 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 09:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I don't think it ever will. TV will NEVER allow a situation like 2 years ago where Alabama was #2 and for them to not be included in the playoff. NEVER.

And that's why there will always be controversy, no matter how many teams are used to determine a champion.

Using this fictional scenario, assume only top four undefeated:

1. West Virginia
2. Texas A&M
3. Texas
4. USC
5. Michigan
6. LSU
7. Miami
8. Notre Dame
9. Georgia
10. Florida State
19. Oregon State
24. Iowa

Texas beats West Virginia in the Big XII championship game, Georgia upsets A&M in the SEC title game and FSU tops Miami in the ACC championship. USC and Michigan lose their championship games to Oregon State and Iowa. This would leave only Texas undefeated and the P5 conference champs would be Texas, Georgia, FSU, Iowa and Oregon State. In a conference champs only scenario, which team gets left out? If non-conference champs are allowed and the committee feels former No.1 West Virginia is still deserving a a spot in the four-team playoff, then why not former No. 2 Texas A&M? Would former No. 6 LSU have a gripe, since they certainly would now be ranked in the top 4 with Michigan and USC losing? You know that Notre Dame would be claiming the rights to a spot since five teams ranked above them lost. Would LSU or Texas A&M be selected instead of SEC Champ Georgia?

Every year they have a four-team playoff, there will be teams complaining that they got the shaft. Then they will expand the playoffs to eight teams and there will still be teams complaining that they should have been included. Until there is a 16-team playoff, they can't be certain to include all teams that could be deemed "playoff worthy" by everyone. And even then there will be complaints, though fewer. Then they will have watered down the value of the regular season to such a degree that they will be in danger of killing the golden goose. The money required to fund such a system will be astronomical and, on an individual school basis, the funds required to compete at the highest level will be huge.

Your last part is laughable.

FCS has managed to have a great playoff system, AND a meaningful regular season.


There are no LOGICAL or LEGITIMATE arguments against a 20-team, all inclusive playoff other than "We don't want too"

The fellas putting this thing together also need to study a calendar. When the call for a playoff was almost inescapable, didn't a FCS playoff game on Villanova's campus on a rainy, cold, Friday night during finals practically become the reason a playoff structure couldn't work.

I don't know what it's going to take to make it right. Under this upcoming system, who knows what weight the CCG might have. Only the playoff games matter, the rest is like one giant NIT. Who gives a crap?

I'm more disappointed commercial sponsors want anything to do with this stuff.