(08-24-2013 01:36 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: You can believe what you want and so can I but don't try to say all the evidence is in the corner of your beliefs, which you have been very open about. You want there to be no major changes, I do.
The difference is that I am saying what is possible and what they could possibly do. You are saying what they absolutely wont do....which you honestly have no idea about to that degree of certainty.
I am dead set against an expanded playoff or conference tournaments, but I'm definitely willing to analyze possibilities. It's what I find interesting about these boards to begin with and why I've been coming here for so long (since before the expansion board even split off from the old main Big East board and long before it morphed into its own separate board entirely) despite not actually wishing any big changes. I also think you are likely right on the direction in the extreme long run.
I not saying anything with 100% certainty and I'm sorry if it sounds like I am, but I think the evidence put the odds of an expanded playoff announced in the next two years at about 1% and of conference semi-finals only slightly above that. Yes, it's only my personal estimate and yes I've been wrong plenty before (never would have guessed TCU for Big 12, thought A&M was locked with Texas, figured the PAC-10 would be unable to expand given unanimous vote requirement, etc). With that said though, I think that's a pretty good estimation based on the data available.
These type of structural changes aren't something that tends to come out with a lot of notice. We followed the CFP negotiations for months, getting a fairly decent idea of what was being discussed and the positions of different conferences. There were many things that came out of that and since then that strongly suggest against any big moves in the immediate future to me.
On Expanded Playoffs:
1. They specifically said that they wanted a longer term period than the 4 year BCS cycles because they were tired of all the questions. "BCS fatigue"
2. There was division on the set-up. The Big Ten and PAC-12 very much wanted to use the bowl system and highlight it. Delaney was still talking about a plus one as a viable alternative even after everyone else went to a team playoff. It's unlikely they'd switch gears so fast and talk of more expansion.
3. Even using the word playoff was avoided at first with them calling it a 4 team event.
4. While not insurmountable, getting out of the bowls contracts would take some money. All 6 of the CFP would likely end up decreasing in stature with an expanded playoff.
5. There's no ESPN/FOX/etc reports of high level people meeting for this. If there was even a small discussion of a bigger playoff it would be huge news. It would also have a lot of opposition just as changing the post-season always has. That opposition would make itself known and challenge changes they viewed as bad.
I could be wrong and they could be planning to expand it now, but to me it seems to very much go against what we have learned about the commissioners/presidents in this.
As far as conference tournaments,
1. The biggest thing is that, to my knowledge, there's never been a news story even suggesting its a possibility. Think about how much we hear about stipends. Doing this would be highly contentious even among schools with the power 5. There would be posturing all around it with those on different sides pushing their agenda. We have none of that so the odds of them being close to deciding something like conference tournaments in my estimation (and I know that's all it is) is very small.
2. Conference tournaments require bigger conferences than we have now. Every power conference beside the SEC (who doesn't need one) has a grant of rights. This means expanding from them is likely ultimately impossible until those deals get closer to expiring (and thus cheaper to buy out). Dissolving the conference is probably the only way around the grant of rights, but you would need a super majority to vote for that and no school that is not guaranteed a spot in power conference afterward would even think of voting for that if the alternative is holding on the the TV rights of a lot of powerful programs.
3. A united front from the power conferences probably could have gotten rules changed on CCG rules and that never came despite most of the power conferences at one point or another desiring a CCG with fewer than 12 teams.
He1nousOne, you probably are right about where college football eventually goes. In fact, give it 20-30 years, and I think you will be. For right now though, I just don't see the evidence to think changes like this are even being discussed beyond message boards like this.
