Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The future of the CFP
Author Message
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #1
The future of the CFP
ESPN's deal with the NY6 expires at about the same time as the Big 12's GoR (and Bob Bowlsby's contract as Commissioner of the Big 12). That's the end of the 2025-6 season.

There's been more than a little speulation that the Big 12 as we know it could "expire" at the same time. I floated a scenario in which the SEC would scoop up Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia which would largely accomplish that.

If that or something equally devastating to the Big 12 were to occur, it occurs to me that one or more of the surviving power conferences might conclude that their interests were no longer served by the CFP structure as we know it. In particular, the SEC might recognize that its increased power relative to the other three leagues changes the game considerably.

If I were the SEC czar, I would probably be arguing in favor of divorcing the playoff from the bowl structure entirely, and simply have a four team "Tournament of Champions" that includes only the P4 champs. No pretense of inclusiveness.

I would be willing to bet that SEC configuration could get at least three tie-ins with the erstwhile NY6 bowls. Let the B1G and PAC have the Rose Bowl to themselves. Then, it's every conference for itself.

As a precursor to the bowl season, I would also see the P4 agreeing to allow four team Conference Championship Tournaments (moving the start of the season up to what is now Week Zero). The SEC's tournament would be easily the most lucrative, and wouldn't have to be shared with anyone else. That's incentive enough for the SEC to insist on their right to do this with or without NCAA approval. And how could the NCAA say no?

Effectively, you now have a 16 team championship tournament - just one with unequal revenue sharing.

Imagine - no selection committees, no "access" slots - just the free enterprise system at its best. Could it happen?
10-09-2018 12:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,900
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #2
RE: The future of the CFP
(10-09-2018 12:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  ESPN's deal with the NY6 expires at about the same time as the Big 12's GoR (and Bob Bowlsby's contract as Commissioner of the Big 12). That's the end of the 2025-6 season.

There's been more than a little speulation that the Big 12 as we know it could "expire" at the same time. I floated a scenario in which the SEC would scoop up Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia which would largely accomplish that.

If that or something equally devastating to the Big 12 were to occur, it occurs to me that one or more of the surviving power conferences might conclude that their interests were no longer served by the CFP structure as we know it. In particular, the SEC might recognize that its increased power relative to the other three leagues changes the game considerably.

If I were the SEC czar, I would probably be arguing in favor of divorcing the playoff from the bowl structure entirely, and simply have a four team "Tournament of Champions" that includes only the P4 champs. No pretense of inclusiveness.

I would be willing to bet that SEC configuration could get at least three tie-ins with the erstwhile NY6 bowls. Let the B1G and PAC have the Rose Bowl to themselves. Then, it's every conference for itself.

As a precursor to the bowl season, I would also see the P4 agreeing to allow four team Conference Championship Tournaments (moving the start of the season up to what is now Week Zero). The SEC's tournament would be easily the most lucrative, and wouldn't have to be shared with anyone else. That's incentive enough for the SEC to insist on their right to do this with or without NCAA approval. And how could the NCAA say no?

Effectively, you now have a 16 team championship tournament - just one with unequal revenue sharing.

Imagine - no selection committees, no "access" slots - just the free enterprise system at its best. Could it happen?

Of course it "could" happen.

Would the networks go for something like it? I think so. It guarantees them that the last 4 participants in that tournament would each represent their own region of the country and that going into the championship semi-finals that all four regions would be represented, which is by the way a much better guarantee than what they can finagle under the present system.

I also agree that by allowing Conference Semi-Finals that most of the conferences, if not all, would be on board.

The Western most divisions of the SEC could have their Semi in DFW and their Eastern most divisions semi in Atlanta. The finals could then be played in rotation cities (Nashville, Jacksonville, Tampa, New Orleans, etc.).

The champs only for the remaining 4 conferences would finally level the playing field with regard to independents. The ACC and Big 10 have an array of cities in which to circulate their playoff games

The PAC does as well.

The only concession I believe that would have to be made is that of the size of conferences. There should not be a push for symmetry. If a conference wishes to remain at 12, or 14, or move to 16, 18, or even 20, that should be a conference decision. Consequently if the PAC doesn't see the need for semi-finals then continuing to have just CCG should be fine. The conference playoffs should remain the business of the conference. But each conference would submit a champion for the final two national rounds.
10-09-2018 12:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #3
RE: The future of the CFP
It's all about the money.

The last time the NCAA was negotiating with CBS and Turner, a group of basketball coaches made a big push to expand the NCAA tournament to 96 teams. It didn't happen because CBS and Turner were not interested in paying much more for the tournament than they already pay.

It will be similar for football. We can imagine all of the 8, 16, or 24 team playoff formats we want, but it's only going to happen if ESPN or someone else wants to pay a lot more than the $500 million/year or so they will be paying by the end of the current CFP deal.

Where can the CFP add enough value to justify doubling the current contract? The networks won't pay much for CFP weekend games after Jan. 1, because those games would get crushed by NFL playoff games. Compare the ratings for NFL playoff games to college playoff and bowl games. It's no contest. You could try to leave the CFP semifinals and finals where they are and add a quarterfinal round the week before New Year's weekend, but you're still limited by the NFL if there are NFL games on Saturday. (The NFL is allowed to play on Saturdays after the first week in December.) There was an NFL regular season game on a Saturday last season that had far more viewers than any CFP bowl game other than the semifinals and final.

If you can't approximately double the current contract, then your only argument for a larger playoff is that the CFP will happily give ESPN 4 additional playoff games for not much more money than ESPN currently pays. I would not hold my breath expecting that to happen.
10-09-2018 02:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #4
RE: The future of the CFP
(10-09-2018 12:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-09-2018 12:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  ESPN's deal with the NY6 expires at about the same time as the Big 12's GoR (and Bob Bowlsby's contract as Commissioner of the Big 12). That's the end of the 2025-6 season.

There's been more than a little speulation that the Big 12 as we know it could "expire" at the same time. I floated a scenario in which the SEC would scoop up Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia which would largely accomplish that.

If that or something equally devastating to the Big 12 were to occur, it occurs to me that one or more of the surviving power conferences might conclude that their interests were no longer served by the CFP structure as we know it. In particular, the SEC might recognize that its increased power relative to the other three leagues changes the game considerably.

If I were the SEC czar, I would probably be arguing in favor of divorcing the playoff from the bowl structure entirely, and simply have a four team "Tournament of Champions" that includes only the P4 champs. No pretense of inclusiveness.

I would be willing to bet that SEC configuration could get at least three tie-ins with the erstwhile NY6 bowls. Let the B1G and PAC have the Rose Bowl to themselves. Then, it's every conference for itself.

As a precursor to the bowl season, I would also see the P4 agreeing to allow four team Conference Championship Tournaments (moving the start of the season up to what is now Week Zero). The SEC's tournament would be easily the most lucrative, and wouldn't have to be shared with anyone else. That's incentive enough for the SEC to insist on their right to do this with or without NCAA approval. And how could the NCAA say no?

Effectively, you now have a 16 team championship tournament - just one with unequal revenue sharing.

Imagine - no selection committees, no "access" slots - just the free enterprise system at its best. Could it happen?

Of course it "could" happen.

Would the networks go for something like it? I think so. It guarantees them that the last 4 participants in that tournament would each represent their own region of the country and that going into the championship semi-finals that all four regions would be represented, which is by the way a much better guarantee than what they can finagle under the present system.

I also agree that by allowing Conference Semi-Finals that most of the conferences, if not all, would be on board.

The Western most divisions of the SEC could have their Semi in DFW and their Eastern most divisions semi in Atlanta. The finals could then be played in rotation cities (Nashville, Jacksonville, Tampa, New Orleans, etc.).

The champs only for the remaining 4 conferences would finally level the playing field with regard to independents. The ACC and Big 10 have an array of cities in which to circulate their playoff games

The PAC does as well.

The only concession I believe that would have to be made is that of the size of conferences. There should not be a push for symmetry. If a conference wishes to remain at 12, or 14, or move to 16, 18, or even 20, that should be a conference decision. Consequently if the PAC doesn't see the need for semi-finals then continuing to have just CCG should be fine. The conference playoffs should remain the business of the conference. But each conference would submit a champion for the final two national rounds.

I would think you would have to set a minimum if there were only 4 conferences. I would think 14.
I would think that the PAC and the ACC would both end up being larger than the SEC or the B1G (as those two conferences already have large amounts of compatible content and don't need more teams to generate more viewers).
10-09-2018 03:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #5
RE: The future of the CFP
(10-09-2018 02:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It's all about the money.

The last time the NCAA was negotiating with CBS and Turner, a group of basketball coaches made a big push to expand the NCAA tournament to 96 teams. It didn't happen because CBS and Turner were not interested in paying much more for the tournament than they already pay.

It will be similar for football. We can imagine all of the 8, 16, or 24 team playoff formats we want, but it's only going to happen if ESPN or someone else wants to pay a lot more than the $500 million/year or so they will be paying by the end of the current CFP deal.

Where can the CFP add enough value to justify doubling the current contract? The networks won't pay much for CFP weekend games after Jan. 1, because those games would get crushed by NFL playoff games. Compare the ratings for NFL playoff games to college playoff and bowl games. It's no contest. You could try to leave the CFP semifinals and finals where they are and add a quarterfinal round the week before New Year's weekend, but you're still limited by the NFL if there are NFL games on Saturday. (The NFL is allowed to play on Saturdays after the first week in December.) There was an NFL regular season game on a Saturday last season that had far more viewers than any CFP bowl game other than the semifinals and final.

If you can't approximately double the current contract, then your only argument for a larger playoff is that the CFP will happily give ESPN 4 additional playoff games for not much more money than ESPN currently pays. I would not hold my breath expecting that to happen.

I'm not suggesting an increase in the size of the CFP or its payout. I'm only suggesting separating out the playoff component from the bowl component. There would still be a four team playoff and there would still be bowls.

The difference is that for the bowls, they would be free to make any tie-ins they want with the power conferences. Each bowl would establish its own payout to the participants it invites. And for the conferences, they would be able to add two more games to their own championship tournament and keep all the potential payout for those games for themselves.
10-09-2018 06:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #6
RE: The future of the CFP
The conferences could make more money from the playoff if it was entirely separated from the bowls. But the non-playoff bowls would be worth less in TV money. Right now they are effectively overpaid by TV because they are bundled for TV rights with playoff games that draw 2 or 3 times as many viewers.

Would the SEC get more "good" bowl games in this hypothetical scenario? Yes. Maybe not much more money, though.
10-09-2018 06:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Fighting Muskie Offline
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,795
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 789
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #7
RE: The future of the CFP
I could see the SEC expanding to 20 and either declaring themselves 2 seperate conferences with their own title games or petitioning for conference semi-finals.

Heck, go to 24 and add even more content and market share to the empire.
10-09-2018 09:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,900
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #8
RE: The future of the CFP
(10-09-2018 09:18 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I could see the SEC expanding to 20 and either declaring themselves 2 seperate conferences with their own title games or petitioning for conference semi-finals.

Heck, go to 24 and add even more content and market share to the empire.

If we went to 24 the last six would be: Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan State.

Those 6 would form the Northern Division

Texas and Oklahoma would round out the West and Clemson and Florida State the East.

Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin

Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

There's your TV demand for college football now. Each division would have their own channel for the conference network and the T1 would be second only to the NFL.
10-09-2018 10:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,300
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #9
RE: The future of the CFP
(10-09-2018 02:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It's all about the money.

The last time the NCAA was negotiating with CBS and Turner, a group of basketball coaches made a big push to expand the NCAA tournament to 96 teams. It didn't happen because CBS and Turner were not interested in paying much more for the tournament than they already pay.

It will be similar for football. We can imagine all of the 8, 16, or 24 team playoff formats we want, but it's only going to happen if ESPN or someone else wants to pay a lot more than the $500 million/year or so they will be paying by the end of the current CFP deal.

Where can the CFP add enough value to justify doubling the current contract? The networks won't pay much for CFP weekend games after Jan. 1, because those games would get crushed by NFL playoff games. Compare the ratings for NFL playoff games to college playoff and bowl games. It's no contest. You could try to leave the CFP semifinals and finals where they are and add a quarterfinal round the week before New Year's weekend, but you're still limited by the NFL if there are NFL games on Saturday. (The NFL is allowed to play on Saturdays after the first week in December.) There was an NFL regular season game on a Saturday last season that had far more viewers than any CFP bowl game other than the semifinals and final.

If you can't approximately double the current contract, then your only argument for a larger playoff is that the CFP will happily give ESPN 4 additional playoff games for not much more money than ESPN currently pays. I would not hold my breath expecting that to happen.
All the analysis says it would be worth a lot more money. And you don’t need to double. You just need to beat the current bowl pay
10-10-2018 02:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #10
RE: The future of the CFP
(10-10-2018 02:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(10-09-2018 02:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It's all about the money.

The last time the NCAA was negotiating with CBS and Turner, a group of basketball coaches made a big push to expand the NCAA tournament to 96 teams. It didn't happen because CBS and Turner were not interested in paying much more for the tournament than they already pay.

It will be similar for football. We can imagine all of the 8, 16, or 24 team playoff formats we want, but it's only going to happen if ESPN or someone else wants to pay a lot more than the $500 million/year or so they will be paying by the end of the current CFP deal.

Where can the CFP add enough value to justify doubling the current contract? The networks won't pay much for CFP weekend games after Jan. 1, because those games would get crushed by NFL playoff games. Compare the ratings for NFL playoff games to college playoff and bowl games. It's no contest. You could try to leave the CFP semifinals and finals where they are and add a quarterfinal round the week before New Year's weekend, but you're still limited by the NFL if there are NFL games on Saturday. (The NFL is allowed to play on Saturdays after the first week in December.) There was an NFL regular season game on a Saturday last season that had far more viewers than any CFP bowl game other than the semifinals and final.

If you can't approximately double the current contract, then your only argument for a larger playoff is that the CFP will happily give ESPN 4 additional playoff games for not much more money than ESPN currently pays. I would not hold my breath expecting that to happen.

All the analysis says it would be worth a lot more money. And you don’t need to double. You just need to beat the current bowl pay

It's only worth what the TV guys are willing to pay. And the increase over the current deal has to be significant, IMO close to double, because there's a lot of inertia to overcome when making a change like this. They are not going to give ESPN 4 more playoff games for a minor increase in revenue.
10-10-2018 03:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,900
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #11
RE: The future of the CFP
(10-10-2018 03:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-10-2018 02:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(10-09-2018 02:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It's all about the money.

The last time the NCAA was negotiating with CBS and Turner, a group of basketball coaches made a big push to expand the NCAA tournament to 96 teams. It didn't happen because CBS and Turner were not interested in paying much more for the tournament than they already pay.

It will be similar for football. We can imagine all of the 8, 16, or 24 team playoff formats we want, but it's only going to happen if ESPN or someone else wants to pay a lot more than the $500 million/year or so they will be paying by the end of the current CFP deal.

Where can the CFP add enough value to justify doubling the current contract? The networks won't pay much for CFP weekend games after Jan. 1, because those games would get crushed by NFL playoff games. Compare the ratings for NFL playoff games to college playoff and bowl games. It's no contest. You could try to leave the CFP semifinals and finals where they are and add a quarterfinal round the week before New Year's weekend, but you're still limited by the NFL if there are NFL games on Saturday. (The NFL is allowed to play on Saturdays after the first week in December.) There was an NFL regular season game on a Saturday last season that had far more viewers than any CFP bowl game other than the semifinals and final.

If you can't approximately double the current contract, then your only argument for a larger playoff is that the CFP will happily give ESPN 4 additional playoff games for not much more money than ESPN currently pays. I would not hold my breath expecting that to happen.

All the analysis says it would be worth a lot more money. And you don’t need to double. You just need to beat the current bowl pay

It's only worth what the TV guys are willing to pay. And the increase over the current deal has to be significant, IMO close to double, because there's a lot of inertia to overcome when making a change like this. They are not going to give ESPN 4 more playoff games for a minor increase in revenue.

which is why I see any added games as coming to the internal conference championship structure. Those games wouldn't have to be paid anymore than the market would bear and the conferences with the best pairings would earn more. That way ESPN doesn't have to tick off any of the bowl cities and the CFP stays the same.

It also puts the burden of the event squarely on the conferences. It would work out fine for the conferences as well since semi finals could be put up for bid as a new product not under an existing contract.
10-10-2018 05:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Statefan Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,511
Joined: May 2018
I Root For: .
Location:
Post: #12
RE: The future of the CFP
I maintain that three divisions of 4, 5, or 6 is the ideal way to go. That would solve the needs of those that want to play every year through their division, allow for three divisional champs, and then have a controversial wild card race.

Consider the B10 at 15

East - Rutgers, MD, PSU, OSU, Indiana
Central - Purdue, Michigan, MSU, NW, Illinois
West - Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas


You get semifinals of OSU/Wisky, Michigan/Penn State base on the most recent years. Both huge games.


SEC at 15


West - Oklahoma, Arkansas, TAMU, Mizzou, LSU
Central - Ole Miss, MSU, Tennessee, Vandy, Alabama
East - UK, SC, Auburn, UGa, Florida


You get semis of OU/Bama and UGa/LSU - all huge games.


Pac 12


North - WSU, Washington, Oregon, Oregon State
West - USC, Cal, Stanford, UCLA
Mountain - ASU, UA, Utah, Colorado

You get Washington/Colorado and USC/Stanford


ACC


North - ND, Pitt, BC, Syracuse, Miami, Navy or WVa
Central - VT, UVa, UNC, NCSU, Duke, WF
South - GT, Clemson, FSU, Louisville, TCU, Texas


You get ND/TCU and Clemson/VT


My point is that three division allow for a wild card. The wild card adds intrigue and controversy. Some of these divisions are not as robust as others. Weak division winners get culled and strong second place finishers have a chance to be the wildcard.
(This post was last modified: 10-10-2018 05:44 PM by Statefan.)
10-10-2018 05:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,900
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #13
RE: The future of the CFP
(10-10-2018 05:41 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I maintain that three divisions of 4, 5, or 6 is the ideal way to go. That would solve the needs of those that want to play every year through their division, allow for three divisional champs, and then have a controversial wild card race.

Consider the B10 at 15

East - Rutgers, MD, PSU, OSU, Indiana
Central - Purdue, Michigan, MSU, NW, Illinois
West - Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas


You get semifinals of OSU/Wisky, Michigan/Penn State base on the most recent years. Both huge games.


SEC at 15


West - Oklahoma, Arkansas, TAMU, Mizzou, LSU
Central - Ole Miss, MSU, Tennessee, Vandy, Alabama
East - UK, SC, Auburn, UGa, Florida


You get semis of OU/Bama and UGa/LSU - all huge games.


Pac 12


North - WSU, Washington, Oregon, Oregon State
West - USC, Cal, Stanford, UCLA
Mountain - ASU, UA, Utah, Colorado

You get Washington/Colorado and USC/Stanford


ACC


North - ND, Pitt, BC, Syracuse, Miami, Navy or WVa
Central - VT, UVa, UNC, NCSU, Duke, WF
South - GT, Clemson, FSU, Louisville, TCU, Texas


You get ND/TCU and Clemson/VT


My point is that three division allow for a wild card. The wild card adds intrigue and controversy. Some of these divisions are not as robust as others. Weak division winners get culled and strong second place finishers have a chance to be the wildcard.

3 divisions and a wild card. Hmm? Seems like I put that notion forward a couple of years ago and all I got were the many conventional group think reasons that couldn't happen.

It's a great format. It was then and it is now. You can group your rivals into divisions, drop permanent cross overs and play every within 3 years. Play the 5 in your division and two rotating from each of the other two divisions and you have 9 conference games.

Division champs and the wild card set up a nice semi-final for the conference.

Numerically speaking 18 works well for profitability by emphasizing regional play.

The rub in your plan is that T.C.U. and Texas wouldn't be likely for the ACC. There simply isn't enough regional teams for them to play and Texas loves playing locally.
10-10-2018 06:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #14
RE: The future of the CFP
(10-10-2018 06:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  3 divisions and a wild card. Hmm? Seems like I put that notion forward a couple of years ago and all I got were the many conventional group think reasons that couldn't happen.

The downside to three 4-team divisions is the high possibility that in some years there will be one weak division that has none of the conference's 4 best teams. That possibility is far less with 6-team divisions. But, obviously none of these conferences has 18 teams.
10-10-2018 06:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,900
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #15
RE: The future of the CFP
(10-10-2018 06:42 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-10-2018 06:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  3 divisions and a wild card. Hmm? Seems like I put that notion forward a couple of years ago and all I got were the many conventional group think reasons that couldn't happen.

The downside to three 4-team divisions is the high possibility that in some years there will be one weak division that has none of the conference's 4 best teams. That possibility is far less with 6-team divisions. But, obviously none of these conferences has 18 teams.
Except when I proposed it the only consideration was for 18. XLance toyed with it at 15 which has some possibilities. But the whole idea was that between the current P5 and with what was then was the best of the G5 a 72 team upper tier would have been very pragmatic and the division between the upper 7 G5 schools and the rest were significant. The whole idea was to group a division with natural rivals within a geographical region thereby keeping the local feel in scheduling even within a larger conference.

The reason the Big 12 can't be parsed is because the key schools give up too many familiar faces to make leaving worth the risk.

The wild card keeps the fans of more schools energized later into the season and helps especially if there are two stellar schools within 1 division.
(This post was last modified: 10-10-2018 06:56 PM by JRsec.)
10-10-2018 06:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #16
RE: The future of the CFP
(10-10-2018 06:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-10-2018 06:42 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-10-2018 06:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  3 divisions and a wild card. Hmm? Seems like I put that notion forward a couple of years ago and all I got were the many conventional group think reasons that couldn't happen.

The downside to three 4-team divisions is the high possibility that in some years there will be one weak division that has none of the conference's 4 best teams. That possibility is far less with 6-team divisions. But, obviously none of these conferences has 18 teams.
Except when I proposed it the only consideration was for 18. XLance toyed with it at 15 which has some possibilities. But the whole idea was that between the current P5 and with what was then was the best of the G5 a 72 team upper tier would have been very pragmatic and the division between the upper 7 G5 schools and the rest were significant. The whole idea was to group a division with natural rivals within a geographical region thereby keeping the local feel in scheduling even within a larger conference.

The reason the Big 12 can't be parsed is because the key schools give up too many familiar faces to make leaving worth the risk.

The wild card keeps the fans of more schools energized later into the season and helps especially if there are two stellar schools within 1 division.

We may find that the SEC and B1G would work well with 15. The ACC with 15 plus Notre Dame as a partial still produces three divisions.
The PAC at 18 carries enough of the old Big 8 (6) to make a real division..
10-10-2018 07:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #17
RE: The future of the CFP
West Virginia, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, South Carolina
Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss. State, Tennessee, Kentucky
Texas, A&M, LSU, Texas Tech, Arkansas.
10-10-2018 08:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wolfman Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,459
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 181
I Root For: The Cartel
Location: Raleigh, NC
Post: #18
RE: The future of the CFP
There is a high probability the SEC or the B1G would have 2 teams in the CFP. There is no way they are going to give up a potential 2nd team in the CFP for a #8 ranked team just because they won the ACC. There is no way they are going to risk a 2nd slot for the sake of a CCG semi final.
10-10-2018 08:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,795
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 789
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #19
RE: The future of the CFP
I for one would be a huge fan of conference semi-finals, particularly if it means 3 division champs and a wildcard. This would lend itself well for 15, 18, and 21 member conferences.

The ACC could try to find away to build Notre Dame into the framework as their 15th. The Big Ten and SEC look to the Big 12 for their additions, be it 1 or 3 schools.
10-10-2018 08:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #20
RE: The future of the CFP
Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech, Louisville
Vanderbilt, Florida State, Clemson, NC State, Wake Forest
UVa, Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami

Notre Dame
10-10-2018 08:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.