The bowl system will one day be completely on the outs.

1. I do think the CFP will expand eventually. There will be too much money on the table although I really don't see it going beyond 8.

2. More and more players with NFL futures and forgoing the exhibition games. Eventually, that will become the rule and not the exception. Fans will be less and less interested.

3. I keep waiting for the day when conferences realize they're getting screwed by not owning every single post-season game. There's an unnecessary middle man and so the payouts are unreasonably low.

I think the idea of conferences doing a series with each other is fine, but it needs to be early in the season. The weather is better which opens up more venues. Also, the fans will be more interested because hope springs eternal.

Well, I'm not sure which statement is more accurate...

Hancock or this article from Bleacher Report:

"Influential Voices" ready to discuss 8 team playoff

(12-12-2018 04:44 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, I'm not sure which statement is more accurate...

Hancock or this article from Bleacher Report:

"Influential Voices" ready to discuss 8 team playoff

Dead space hype. Finebaum interviewed someone close to the process today and the guy said it took forever to get the top two to play. And that was only 20 years ago. Then it took even longer to expand to 4. And then he said there was no impetus within the real structure for it and that these people who are going to talk about it are really just trying to put their conferences on record as to be tired of being left out.

(12-12-2018 05:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 04:44 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, I'm not sure which statement is more accurate...

Hancock or this article from Bleacher Report:

"Influential Voices" ready to discuss 8 team playoff

Dead space hype. Finebaum interviewed someone close to the process today and the guy said it took forever to get the top two to play. And that was only 20 years ago. Then it took even longer to expand to 4. And then he said there was no impetus within the real structure for it and that these people who are going to talk about it are really just trying to put their conferences on record as to be tired of being left out.

These aren’t just media types making noise now. It won’t be by 2020 but I’d be surprised if we don’t get some movement on this when the deal expires

(12-12-2018 07:49 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 05:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 04:44 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, I'm not sure which statement is more accurate...

Hancock or this article from Bleacher Report:

"Influential Voices" ready to discuss 8 team playoff

Dead space hype. Finebaum interviewed someone close to the process today and the guy said it took forever to get the top two to play. And that was only 20 years ago. Then it took even longer to expand to 4. And then he said there was no impetus within the real structure for it and that these people who are going to talk about it are really just trying to put their conferences on record as to be tired of being left out.

These aren’t just media types making noise now. It won’t be by 2020 but I’d be surprised if we don’t get some movement on this when the deal expires

There is noone at the commissioner or A.D. level pushing for expansion. This isn't a matter that fans will decide ever.

Right now the Commissioners are quietly getting their houses in order to handle the fallout from the Alston case, which they expect to lose. Final arguments are scheduled for the 18th of this month and a ruling is expected perhaps by early February 2019.

Until that matter is settled we aren't even sure who will or won't be making the break into unfettered pay for play. I would think that this case could reshape everything moving forward.

Expanded playoff talk is just dead space filler for reporters.

BTW: Gamecock the present 12 year deal for the CFP reaches year 6 at the end of next year's season. This format will be with us (unless ended by the Alston case) until the end of the 2025-6 season.

In fact our commissioners may be only able to stall for 1 additional year after that ruling if the NCAA challenges the case before the Supreme Court. But, if the Supremes reveiw the case they can simply uphold the decision without hearing an appeal. So we might have a Summer to get things switched over, or we might have a year. Either way Vandy tipped their hand with the A.D. they just hired.

The way I look at the Alston case, I think the CFP will inevitably expand in the wake of a loss by the NCAA.

Conferences and officials will start looking for new revenue streams in an even more aggressive manner than they have to date. New bills will inspire some people to seek out new money. I think this will also impact current NCAA tournament structures. Whether it's March Madness or the baseball and softball world series, the money making sporting events will be under greater control of conferences with money.

I don't think these events are completely disconnected.

(12-12-2018 08:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The way I look at the Alston case, I think the CFP will inevitably expand in the wake of a loss by the NCAA.

Conferences and officials will start looking for new revenue streams in an even more aggressive manner than they have to date. New bills will inspire some people to seek out new money. I think this will also impact current NCAA tournament structures. Whether it's March Madness or the baseball and softball world series, the money making sporting events will be under greater control of conferences with money.

I don't think these events are completely disconnected.

ATU the SEC earned on TV revenue alone 17 million for the SEC championship game and that is not including ticket sales, concessions cuts, and signage and advertising. We get 6 damn million for two CFP games combined if we win the first or not. Now I'm pretty good at business, but it's gong to take a helluva lot more before we give up our CCG to expand the damned playoffs. Now do you think those playoffs would be worth a nickel if the SEC said we'll pass? Expanding the conference championship with semis would pay us even more than voting to drop our CCG and expand to 8. And while the BTen doesn't earn as much as the SEC for the CCG they earn a lot more than 6 million. So we won't be alone.

What's more is that the number of schools going all in will be fewer than 65 probably by a dozen or so. Redefining conferences will be the first step and whittling it down to 4 would be a cinch. Personally speaking if Alston changes things I think it will cement the current CFP format as we likely will be in four redrawn conferences where champions will be crowned and get the auto bid. The conferences will make more when all four institute a semi final round for their championships.

And it's coming which is why Vandy hired a semi pro A.D.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...g-players/

I certainly don’t expect in before the deal is up. But I see expansion to 8 as far more likely than expansion to 18 or 20 team conferences, which is the only long term alternative.

As for the Alston case, I’ll admit I have not followed it, but I suspect that conferences will all get together to self impose some reasonable limits and business will largely carry on as usual

(12-12-2018 10:05 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  I certainly don’t expect in before the deal is up. But I see expansion to 8 as far more likely than expansion to 18 or 20 team conferences, which is the only long term alternative.

As for the Alston case, I’ll admit I have not followed it, but I suspect that conferences will all get together to self impose some reasonable limits and business will largely carry on as usual

You need to read up on the case. The whole point of the litigation is the elimination of caps. Alston wins there will be no limits and business will do anything but carry on as usual.

If it passes there will be self limiting options available to lesser divisions, but not in the top tier.

As to 18 or 20 team conferences the SEC discussed it formally in '91. Slive said the only upward limit was profitability. But that was with market footprint additions driving up the payouts. In a content driven world it will be only limited by the number of schools with content value willing to play against one another regularly. (Jackie Sherrill gave an interview in which he outlined our defensive proposal of 20 schools should the Big 10 try to invade the South. The concept was keeping our branding within the region at that time. The article is still online if you Google it.) But the original reach in '91 was to move to 16 and South Carolina was seen as a possible bridge to finally getting into North Carolina so their thinking was beyond the 16 they were seeking even then.

If Alston wins we might see as few as 36 to 48 schools in the upper tier. 4 conferences or 2 leagues would be quite manageable. The CFP will have zero reason to expand.

(12-12-2018 09:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 08:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The way I look at the Alston case, I think the CFP will inevitably expand in the wake of a loss by the NCAA.

Conferences and officials will start looking for new revenue streams in an even more aggressive manner than they have to date. New bills will inspire some people to seek out new money. I think this will also impact current NCAA tournament structures. Whether it's March Madness or the baseball and softball world series, the money making sporting events will be under greater control of conferences with money.

I don't think these events are completely disconnected.

ATU the SEC earned on TV revenue alone 17 million for the SEC championship game and that is not including ticket sales, concessions cuts, and signage and advertising. We get 6 damn million for two CFP games combined if we win the first or not. Now I'm pretty good at business, but it's gong to take a helluva lot more before we give up our CCG to expand the damned playoffs. Now do you think those playoffs would be worth a nickel if the SEC said we'll pass? Expanding the conference championship with semis would pay us even more than voting to drop our CCG and expand to 8. And while the BTen doesn't earn as much as the SEC for the CCG they earn a lot more than 6 million. So we won't be alone.

What's more is that the number of schools going all in will be fewer than 65 probably by a dozen or so. Redefining conferences will be the first step and whittling it down to 4 would be a cinch. Personally speaking if Alston changes things I think it will cement the current CFP format as we likely will be in four redrawn conferences where champions will be crowned and get the auto bid. The conferences will make more when all four institute a semi final round for their championships.

And it's coming which is why Vandy hired a semi pro A.D.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...g-players/

To piggyback a little. A NCAA football game would generate a lot of money.

(12-12-2018 10:56 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 09:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 08:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The way I look at the Alston case, I think the CFP will inevitably expand in the wake of a loss by the NCAA.

Conferences and officials will start looking for new revenue streams in an even more aggressive manner than they have to date. New bills will inspire some people to seek out new money. I think this will also impact current NCAA tournament structures. Whether it's March Madness or the baseball and softball world series, the money making sporting events will be under greater control of conferences with money.

I don't think these events are completely disconnected.

ATU the SEC earned on TV revenue alone 17 million for the SEC championship game and that is not including ticket sales, concessions cuts, and signage and advertising. We get 6 damn million for two CFP games combined if we win the first or not. Now I'm pretty good at business, but it's gong to take a helluva lot more before we give up our CCG to expand the damned playoffs. Now do you think those playoffs would be worth a nickel if the SEC said we'll pass? Expanding the conference championship with semis would pay us even more than voting to drop our CCG and expand to 8. And while the BTen doesn't earn as much as the SEC for the CCG they earn a lot more than 6 million. So we won't be alone.

What's more is that the number of schools going all in will be fewer than 65 probably by a dozen or so. Redefining conferences will be the first step and whittling it down to 4 would be a cinch. Personally speaking if Alston changes things I think it will cement the current CFP format as we likely will be in four redrawn conferences where champions will be crowned and get the auto bid. The conferences will make more when all four institute a semi final round for their championships.

And it's coming which is why Vandy hired a semi pro A.D.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...g-players/

To piggyback a little. A NCAA football game would generate a lot of money.

Clearly not Hawhiggs. The CFP payout is 6 million to the school whether they play once or twice. Sugar bowl 5 million tops. And the conference portion for what were once 14-15 million bowl payouts is now collected in the 40 million each P5 conference gets in addition to the team payout. And that's for all bowls. So a handful of mediocre bowls that once paid out 2 to 7 million gets collected the same way. 3 NY6 bowls were once about average for the SEC and Big 10. So think 40 million right there. Everything else was gravy. When ESPN bought most of the bowls and paid everyone 40 million it appeased the ACC, PAC, and Big 12 which rarely had 3 entrants each on a NY6 bowl. So it became part of the ESPN Welfare system. It's why the Big 10 is pissed now about missing the CFP twice. With their 40 million to split 14 ways plus 6 million for their representative in the CFP they hit close to what they once earned in the bowls before ESPN bought them and the SEC did as well.

With the SEC CCG earning well North of 17 million when all things are finally factored in, and considering they split that revenue with nobody, there is no way in hell that an NCAA early round playoff game makes up for the SEC championship revenue. It's a losing business proposition and we'll tell them where to stick it!

(12-12-2018 09:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 08:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The way I look at the Alston case, I think the CFP will inevitably expand in the wake of a loss by the NCAA.

Conferences and officials will start looking for new revenue streams in an even more aggressive manner than they have to date. New bills will inspire some people to seek out new money. I think this will also impact current NCAA tournament structures. Whether it's March Madness or the baseball and softball world series, the money making sporting events will be under greater control of conferences with money.

I don't think these events are completely disconnected.

ATU the SEC earned on TV revenue alone 17 million for the SEC championship game and that is not including ticket sales, concessions cuts, and signage and advertising. We get 6 damn million for two CFP games combined if we win the first or not. Now I'm pretty good at business, but it's gong to take a helluva lot more before we give up our CCG to expand the damned playoffs. Now do you think those playoffs would be worth a nickel if the SEC said we'll pass? Expanding the conference championship with semis would pay us even more than voting to drop our CCG and expand to 8. And while the BTen doesn't earn as much as the SEC for the CCG they earn a lot more than 6 million. So we won't be alone.

What's more is that the number of schools going all in will be fewer than 65 probably by a dozen or so. Redefining conferences will be the first step and whittling it down to 4 would be a cinch. Personally speaking if Alston changes things I think it will cement the current CFP format as we likely will be in four redrawn conferences where champions will be crowned and get the auto bid. The conferences will make more when all four institute a semi final round for their championships.

And it's coming which is why Vandy hired a semi pro A.D.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...g-players/

I understand your point, but I don't see why the SEC would have to give up its title game.

If the NCAA loses the case then players are going to get paid fairly well and I don't think the administrators will mind adding a game to the schedule in that scenario. The title games are profitable and even in the current system, there's been no guarantee that losing the game(or not being in the game for that matter) would disqualify you from national championship contention. I think people will still love watching/attending the conference title games because it's a bragging right to win that hardware. I don't see it as a play-in game in the sense that it would lose value if both participants had a legitimate shot at being in the CFP.

Also, if we end up with a paring down of schools then that probably means 12 games against Power competition. The TV money will be better, but it will also mean one or two fewer homes games. Adding an extra home game for teams that get into the CFP(the 1st round) would be a huge reward for those local economies.

For me, the central question is access for major programs. If leagues start consolidating then entrance into the CFP will be that much more difficult if it's functionally a champs-only format. I don't contend that such a system would be efficient or sufficiently profitable. What I contend is that programs in tougher leagues will want a 2nd chance. Especially with the SEC, there's a chance we would have 2-3 entrants in an 8 team CFP every single season. I think that's especially true if we pare down to 48 schools or less accompanied by larger leagues.

The major programs will want some safeguards for giving up an easier schedule in lesser leagues. Sure, they'll get paid plenty for moving to a league like the SEC or B1G, but if you're going to be guaranteed a playoff spot simply by winning one of 4 leagues then that reduces the positives in moving to certain conferences.

From the SEC's perspective, why wouldn't they want a system that increases the odds one of their schools wins it all? That's incredible branding. From the perspective of the other leagues, they still get access and a reasonable shot to play their best game.

More teams/games = more money, the guarantee of more big name programs = more money from better ratings, the paring down of schools means everyone gets a bigger slice of the pie = more money

The powers that be tend to sell out for money with regard to almost every decision. With every passing year, they try to squeeze more money out of their fans and this will be the easiest way to do it in one fell swoop. Just seems like the natural progression of things so I'd bet on an expansion at some point. I just think a loss in the Alston case would make it more likely to happen a little quicker.

My earlier point was that new bills would equal new desire to generate revenue. What I'm really getting at is that programs will look for ways to maintain the same profit margins now that they'll be required to have new costs.

(12-12-2018 11:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 10:56 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 09:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 08:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The way I look at the Alston case, I think the CFP will inevitably expand in the wake of a loss by the NCAA.

Conferences and officials will start looking for new revenue streams in an even more aggressive manner than they have to date. New bills will inspire some people to seek out new money. I think this will also impact current NCAA tournament structures. Whether it's March Madness or the baseball and softball world series, the money making sporting events will be under greater control of conferences with money.

I don't think these events are completely disconnected.

ATU the SEC earned on TV revenue alone 17 million for the SEC championship game and that is not including ticket sales, concessions cuts, and signage and advertising. We get 6 damn million for two CFP games combined if we win the first or not. Now I'm pretty good at business, but it's gong to take a helluva lot more before we give up our CCG to expand the damned playoffs. Now do you think those playoffs would be worth a nickel if the SEC said we'll pass? Expanding the conference championship with semis would pay us even more than voting to drop our CCG and expand to 8. And while the BTen doesn't earn as much as the SEC for the CCG they earn a lot more than 6 million. So we won't be alone.

What's more is that the number of schools going all in will be fewer than 65 probably by a dozen or so. Redefining conferences will be the first step and whittling it down to 4 would be a cinch. Personally speaking if Alston changes things I think it will cement the current CFP format as we likely will be in four redrawn conferences where champions will be crowned and get the auto bid. The conferences will make more when all four institute a semi final round for their championships.

And it's coming which is why Vandy hired a semi pro A.D.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...g-players/

To piggyback a little. A NCAA football game would generate a lot of money.

Clearly not Hawhiggs. The CFP payout is 6 million to the school whether they play once or twice. Sugar bowl 5 million tops. And the conference portion for what were once 14-15 million bowl payouts is now collected in the 40 million each P5 conference gets in addition to the team payout. And that's for all bowls. So a handful of mediocre bowls that once paid out 2 to 7 million gets collected the same way. 3 NY6 bowls were once about average for the SEC and Big 10. So think 40 million right there. Everything else was gravy. When ESPN bought most of the bowls and paid everyone 40 million it appeased the ACC, PAC, and Big 12 which rarely had 3 entrants each on a NY6 bowl. So it became part of the ESPN Welfare system. It's why the Big 10 is pissed now about missing the CFP twice. With their 40 million to split 14 ways plus 6 million for their representative in the CFP they hit close to what they once earned in the bowls before ESPN bought them and the SEC did as well.

With the SEC CCG earning well North of 17 million when all things are finally factored in, and considering they split that revenue with nobody, there is no way in hell that an NCAA early round playoff game makes up for the SEC championship revenue. It's a losing business proposition and we'll tell them where to stick it!

I believe he’s talking about the video game franchise

He’s absolutely right too. I’ve more or less givenup on gaming the last few years but I would absolutely buy the newest console and an NCAA football game the day it came out. I wouldn’t be alone either, I’d imagine that release would shatter existing video game sales records

(12-12-2018 09:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ATU the SEC earned on TV revenue alone 17 million for the SEC championship game and that is not including ticket sales, concessions cuts, and signage and advertising. We get 6 damn million for two CFP games combined if we win the first or not. Now I'm pretty good at business, but it's gong to take a helluva lot more before we give up our CCG to expand the damned playoffs. Now do you think those playoffs would be worth a nickel if the SEC said we'll pass? Expanding the conference championship with semis would pay us even more than voting to drop our CCG and expand to 8. And while the BTen doesn't earn as much as the SEC for the CCG they earn a lot more than 6 million. So we won't be alone.

That is a major stickler that a lot of playoff expansion proponents undervalue. And the reason is simple; save for the B1G and the SEC, the other three P5 CCG earn peanuts. Convincing the SEC to give up a guaranteed $17mil for the potential of $6mil and to do so for the good of the game is simply a non-starter.

(12-13-2018 07:59 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 09:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ATU the SEC earned on TV revenue alone 17 million for the SEC championship game and that is not including ticket sales, concessions cuts, and signage and advertising. We get 6 damn million for two CFP games combined if we win the first or not. Now I'm pretty good at business, but it's gong to take a helluva lot more before we give up our CCG to expand the damned playoffs. Now do you think those playoffs would be worth a nickel if the SEC said we'll pass? Expanding the conference championship with semis would pay us even more than voting to drop our CCG and expand to 8. And while the BTen doesn't earn as much as the SEC for the CCG they earn a lot more than 6 million. So we won't be alone.

That is a major stickler that a lot of playoff expansion proponents undervalue. And the reason is simple; save for the B1G and the SEC, the other three P5 CCG earn peanuts. Convincing the SEC to give up a guaranteed $17mil for the potential of $6mil and to do so for the good of the game is simply a non-starter.

The playoffs will expand to 8, but the CCGs will NOT go away.

(12-13-2018 09:11 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 07:59 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 09:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ATU the SEC earned on TV revenue alone 17 million for the SEC championship game and that is not including ticket sales, concessions cuts, and signage and advertising. We get 6 damn million for two CFP games combined if we win the first or not. Now I'm pretty good at business, but it's gong to take a helluva lot more before we give up our CCG to expand the damned playoffs. Now do you think those playoffs would be worth a nickel if the SEC said we'll pass? Expanding the conference championship with semis would pay us even more than voting to drop our CCG and expand to 8. And while the BTen doesn't earn as much as the SEC for the CCG they earn a lot more than 6 million. So we won't be alone.

That is a major stickler that a lot of playoff expansion proponents undervalue. And the reason is simple; save for the B1G and the SEC, the other three P5 CCG earn peanuts. Convincing the SEC to give up a guaranteed $17mil for the potential of $6mil and to do so for the good of the game is simply a non-starter.

The playoffs will expand to 8, but the CCGs will NOT go away.

Yeah, I don't get the idea that the CCGs have to go away.

Quarters- Dec 15 (home fields)
Semi - Dec 29
Championship - January 7

Doesn't seem very hard to me.

(12-13-2018 09:34 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 09:11 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 07:59 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 09:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ATU the SEC earned on TV revenue alone 17 million for the SEC championship game and that is not including ticket sales, concessions cuts, and signage and advertising. We get 6 damn million for two CFP games combined if we win the first or not. Now I'm pretty good at business, but it's gong to take a helluva lot more before we give up our CCG to expand the damned playoffs. Now do you think those playoffs would be worth a nickel if the SEC said we'll pass? Expanding the conference championship with semis would pay us even more than voting to drop our CCG and expand to 8. And while the BTen doesn't earn as much as the SEC for the CCG they earn a lot more than 6 million. So we won't be alone.

That is a major stickler that a lot of playoff expansion proponents undervalue. And the reason is simple; save for the B1G and the SEC, the other three P5 CCG earn peanuts. Convincing the SEC to give up a guaranteed $17mil for the potential of $6mil and to do so for the good of the game is simply a non-starter.

The playoffs will expand to 8, but the CCGs will NOT go away.

Yeah, I don't get the idea that the CCGs have to go away.

Quarters- Dec 15 (home fields)
Semi - Dec 29
Championship - January 7

Doesn't seem very hard to me.

Then you haven't been listening to Sankey and Delany. Either the games have to be played 2 weeks after the CCGs, or the CCGs have to be replaced. Nobody wants to push past the date that the present finals are played because they then compete with top NFL playoff games, and because the Networks wouldn't pay as much for them if they did.

The dilemma is that ESPN doesn't want playoff games in competition with their first week of bowl games either. Those games already draw poorly. If a first round of the playoffs were in direct competition with them the early bowls would be DOA. ESPN owns those bowls and the CFP. And the cheap bowl hosts would raise hell. It may even be in their contracts. What ESPN wants is the revenue from the week of conference playoffs too, which currently belongs to the conferences. And the top conferences won't relinquish that money. And therein lies the impasse.

(12-13-2018 10:16 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 09:34 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 09:11 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 07:59 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 09:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ATU the SEC earned on TV revenue alone 17 million for the SEC championship game and that is not including ticket sales, concessions cuts, and signage and advertising. We get 6 damn million for two CFP games combined if we win the first or not. Now I'm pretty good at business, but it's gong to take a helluva lot more before we give up our CCG to expand the damned playoffs. Now do you think those playoffs would be worth a nickel if the SEC said we'll pass? Expanding the conference championship with semis would pay us even more than voting to drop our CCG and expand to 8. And while the BTen doesn't earn as much as the SEC for the CCG they earn a lot more than 6 million. So we won't be alone.

That is a major stickler that a lot of playoff expansion proponents undervalue. And the reason is simple; save for the B1G and the SEC, the other three P5 CCG earn peanuts. Convincing the SEC to give up a guaranteed $17mil for the potential of $6mil and to do so for the good of the game is simply a non-starter.

The playoffs will expand to 8, but the CCGs will NOT go away.

Yeah, I don't get the idea that the CCGs have to go away.

Quarters- Dec 15 (home fields)
Semi - Dec 29
Championship - January 7

Doesn't seem very hard to me.

Then you haven't been listening to Sankey and Delany. Either the games have to be played 2 weeks after the CCGs, or the CCGs have to be replaced. Nobody wants to push past the date that the present finals are played because they then compete with top NFL playoff games, and because the Networks wouldn't pay as much for them if they did.

The dilemma is that ESPN doesn't want playoff games in competition with their first week of bowl games either. Those games already draw poorly. If a first round of the playoffs were in direct competition with them the early bowls would be DOA. ESPN owns those bowls and the CFP. And the cheap bowl hosts would raise hell. It may even be in their contracts. What ESPN wants is the revenue from the week of conference playoffs too, which currently belongs to the conferences. And the top conferences won't relinquish that money. And therein lies the impasse.

Commissioners lie all the time, so it's easy to ignore them. Every one of them except Slive said four teams/plus one was impossible for X, Y, and Z reasons until they got tired of their conferences being left out and realized expansion would make more money

The CCG issue is why I suggested Dec 15 - it's two weeks after the CCGs. If they wanted to do Dec 22 they could do that too and probably be fine but then that creates a bit of a time crunch between the quarters and semis. The CCGs don't need to be affected at all.

This thing is incredibly easy to coordinate and no one would lose any money (and in fact everyone would stand to gain a lot), except the folks with the Cure and R+L Carriers bowls.

The ongoing question is having the champions of 4 super conferences meet for the playoffs vs the current somewhat subjective method of naming the "four best" by committee. For the former, expansion/re-alignment would be essential. Major conferences are presently too uneven in strength and numbers.

Going to four super-conferences (say 4 @ 16 each), will only offer partial equity. There will always be a Boise State, a UCF, or a BYU, claiming undue exclusions. Universities change in size, funding, support for athletics, etc. Also, any arrangement that offers exceptions to Notre Dame, and not others, embraces favoritism further.

Personally, I am not a fan of extending the college season.
I say balance the sizes via expansion/re-alignment, keep it at 4 for awhile, place conference champions, and set up strict criteria whereby a conference championship challenger outside the P4 could petition for one spot held among the P4s. It would require very distinct measurements determined beforehand, and under the governance of the selection committee who also ranks all spots.

(12-13-2018 11:06 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  The ongoing question is having the champions of 4 super conferences meet for the playoffs vs the current somewhat subjective method of naming the "four best" by committee. For the former, expansion/re-alignment would be essential. Major conferences are presently too uneven in strength and numbers.

Going to four super-conferences (say 4 @ 16 each), will only offer partial equity. There will always be a Boise State, a UCF, or a BYU, claiming undue exclusions. Universities change in size, funding, support for athletics, etc. Also, any arrangement that offers exceptions to Notre Dame, and not others, embraces favoritism further.

Personally, I am not a fan of extending the college season.
I say balance the sizes via expansion/re-alignment, keep it at 4 for awhile, place conference champions, and set up strict criteria whereby a conference championship challenger outside the P4 could petition for one spot held among the P4s. It would require very distinct measurements determined beforehand, and under the governance of the selection committee who also ranks all spots.

And I say set up separate tiers and hold separate championships just like we do in high school ball. Set up equal conferences within each and let the champions play it off. That is Occam's razor. There is no reality in which schools that are subsidized over 25% (and that's every G5) need to be on the field with a school that clears 175 million. It doesn't mean that they are the inferior squad on any given year, it just means that for most playing with that handicap it is safer for their players to play within their economic weight class.

It is why the service academies have not pushed for inclusion into the P5.