(05-04-2021 08:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-04-2021 08:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 03:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 02:37 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 01:20 PM)usffan Wrote:  I've an$wered thi$ before and I will an$wer it again. The rea$on they will end up moving to a 5-1-6 model i$ that it will generate con$iderably more money by having 4 more game$ to $ell to the network($) that broadca$t them. The majority of that money will obviou$ly go to the conference$ and team$ that participate in them, but a portion will be pa$$ed along to everybody el$e, re$ulting in a higher overall payout. Plu$, having a guaranteed repre$entative i$ far better than the G5 ha$ managed to do throughout the entirety of the CFP to date, $o having to play in the extra game i$ $TILL better than being $y$tematically excluded every year.

U$FFan

Of course, money is good. But if money is everything, why not go wirh the 16 playoff? More games and more $$$. The SI article does not seem to indicate the 12 team playoff is a done deal.

Well, as I always remind people here, it's not just about the money in an absolute sense.

It's about the money SPLIT in a relative sense.

As the SI article noted, the current CFP revenue split is around 80/20 between the P5 and G5. A playoff system that would turn that into, say, a 70/30 split may not be worth it for the P5 even if the P5 might actually make more absolute dollars under that system. The evolutionary need to preserve *relative* power is wildly underrated by people in general.

Also, you have to look at revenue holistically. There's no doubt that a larger college football playoff system would make more money by itself. However, what the P5 do NOT want to see happen is what we now see with the NCAA Tournament. In basketball, the NCAA Tournament has essentially hoovered up all of the TV revenue for that sport and left little value to the regular season by comparison.

By contrast, college football TV revenue is still largely about the regular season, which is important for the P5 because they have complete control over their regular season revenue. Therefore, a playoff system cannot be so large that it takes away the value of their regular season TV contracts. I think an 8-team playoff with P5 auto-bids enhances the value of the P5 regular season TV contracts because it turns their conference championship games into de facto playoff games. Once you get a playoff larger than that, then you likely start having diminishing returns.

I agree with most of this, save for one key point: There is a "relative" dynamic *within* the P5 that I think your narrative misses - the SEC and B1G status as the big kahunas within the P5. And in that regard, I think a 5-1-2 system would have a significant leveling effect within the P5, narrowing that money/power/status gap between those two and the other three. And the SEC and B1G are unlikely to want that to happen.

That's because 5-1-2 would make all P5 CCGs playoff games, thus increasing the value of the PAC/B12/ACC games relative to the SEC and B1G games (the latter two already have massive value). Also, with Notre Dame likely to get a playoff spot many years, and the G5 "hoovering up" an autobid, that leaves just one at-large spot in many years. So with each P5 basically getting a single playoff team, that will level-out the power within the P5, raising the PAC/ACC/B12 relative to the SEC and B1G. Currently, under the four team model, that doesn't happen, because even though the four-team playoffs basically limits each conference to at most one playoff spot, there is the compensating factor of unlimited places in the still-prestigious NY6, and the SEC and B1G have been able to flex their muscles by getting many more teams in the NY6, enhancing their status. But with 5-1-2, the remaining bowls will be so denigrated in status that this status-enhancing mechanism will no longer exist.

Also, the regular seasons of each P5, which right now differ markedly in importance and which is one reason the SEC and B1G get much more media money, will now be essentially the same. A Wake Forest vs NC State game or a Washington State vs Arizona State game will have the same national implications as Iowa vs Michigan or LSU vs South Carolina. They will all just funnel in to the same thing, the respective CCG that will determine the playoff spot.

It's little wonder therefore that the PAC and AAC, Scott and Aresco, have been so gung-ho about 5-1-2. This system, if history is any guide, would basically shore up the PAC, eliminating the fade-out it has experienced the past 10 years, and realize Aresco's P6 agenda, at least in a defacto sense.

But for the SEC and B1G, 5-1-2 is a *relatively* losing proposition compared to the current CFP. The value of their regular seasons, and post-seasons, and commensurate dominant status, will almost surely decline relative to that of the other P5. The only way I see out of that is a 12-team system, with four additional at-large spots.

I think the SEC might think that way. The league gets so much deference from the committee and general public that whatever system maximizes their playoff bids is what matters.

However, I disagree about the Big Ten. The league has long cared about the treatment of its conference champion specifically. It's a vestige of the days when getting to the Rose Bowl was the unambiguous goal for winning the league. The conference was legitimately miffed when a non-conference champ Ohio State made it into the playoff instead of Big Ten champ Penn State in 2016. Even though *a* Big Ten team made it to the playoff, it was an indication that the committee only respects Ohio State (who happens to play in the Big Ten) as opposed to the Big Ten overall. You could say the same thing about the ACC - they shouldn't be too comfortable with their CFP playoff berths because that's all a reflection of how much respect Clemson specifically has as opposed to the ACC itself.

Plus, the Big Ten has had the experience of being left out of the CFP multiple times already. They have experienced the damage that causes to the league's television ratings and national interest in those years. The SEC has enough capital that shooting the moon on the upside is a decent bet for them. I can't say the same for the Big Ten - this next playoff expansion is going to be all about downside protection for them (as I think it will be for the other non-SEC P5 conferences, too).

We disagree about the stance of the B1G - I see it as that of a dominant conference, one making almost $60 million in media money, and keenly eager to keep that advantage, especially by comparison with the ACC, who it competes with in the northeast corridor. Yes, the B1G and Delany grumbled when the B1G was left out of the playoffs, but they haven't done any grumbling the last two years, because they made it. So IMO B1G memories seem to be short about that, not long.

But even if the B1G is more concerned with downside protection, 5-1-6 achieves that, while also allowing for more B1G teams to make the playoffs. So I think the B1G would side with the SEC on that.