IMO, a reason why the MAC Commish doesn't support it:

Expanding it most likely (and realistically) meant 8, not 12.

When there's only 8 teams in a PLAYOFF (not a 'big bowl matchup'; a big difference in selecting) -- you're basically going to eliminate an Unconditional G5 Champ entry. And fairly so. And Technically, eliminating an Unconditional P5 Champ entry, too.

Thus, I can see why many didn't want it, because $$ is good right now. The G5 Champ would make it only about 50% of the time, if the condition was to be ranked in the Top 12-13 to be eligible as an auto-bid. Sure, there could still be a couple biggER bowls than normal, where a high P5 and a top G5 Champ would always go to when they don't make the cut anymore, but the payout would not at all be BCS-level.

And the 1st round would likely be home/away games -- less $$ for that 1st round. But even if not, the G5 Champ would have to average >= 1.0 wins every time they're in, IF they get there 50% of the time, to even out what the G5 gets now.

And the P5 Champ who ended up being ranked like #15, and no BCS-level bowl or playoff for them? Not often at all, but ANY risk is no good for them.

Some say P5 Champs would get an auto-bid No-Matter-What in an 8-team playoff. 9 years ago, a P6 Champ was below 2 G5 Champs, and even under Cinci who was part of the (lower) P6 at the time as the Big East was nearing it's way out. Nixing a G5 Champ who's RANKED higher than a P5 Champ who's allowed in -- may work for Big-Lights-Bowls -- but that ain't gonna happen for Playoffs, even if it's only 1 in 10 years.

Essentially, they don't want to rock the boat when they got $$.

It's like these conference commissioners are out of touch with reality. This current format is not working and obviously needs to be fixed. Imagine if all other sports operated a post season like FBS football. It would be awful.

(01-17-2019 09:03 PM)NIU Chicago Wrote:  What an idiot. If UFC has shown one thing is that no G5 will ever get into the 4 team playoff.

The context of his comments has been completely lost. He did NOT say he was against playoff expansion. He said that he couldn’t currently support expansion without any prior knowledge of how it would be expanded and who would be included. He took a neutral position, pending a thorough defintion of what an expanded playoff would look like. It is entirely possible they could expand the CFP without any additional access for the G5. Seems like the right position to take to me.

(01-18-2019 08:24 PM)HuskieDave Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 09:03 PM)NIU Chicago Wrote:  What an idiot. If UFC has shown one thing is that no G5 will ever get into the 4 team playoff.

The context of his comments has been completely lost. He did NOT say he was against playoff expansion. He said that he couldn’t currently support expansion without any prior knowledge of how it would be expanded and who would be included. He took a neutral position, pending a thorough defintion of what an expanded playoff would look like. It is entirely possible they could expand the CFP without any additional access for the G5. Seems like the right position to take to me.

Then make that more apparent. In the age of headlines, Mid-American Conference football is not a time to be a "neutral" party. I would imagine if you pulled every MAC fan they would be in favor of expansion.

(01-17-2019 09:27 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

Quote:MAC Commissioner does not support CFB playoff expansion

MAC Commissioner is wrong.

I disagree. I'm not sure if many here actually read the piece. The MAC commissioner along with the MWC commissioner simply stated they want to see the playoff expansion proposal fully vetted before they opined on the subject. Both are doing their due diligence to ensure their support benefits their respective conferences

The issue for most decision makers is how to expand the playoff without dismantling the bowl system. I wouldn’t want bowls to go away for teams that won’t make the playoff. That’s a huge reward for fans and teams. The playoff wouldn’t expand to the point where enough teams get included like in FCS.