(04-18-2019 10:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 07:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 05:30 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 01:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 11:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  I'm fine with the bowls taking the hit by having the quarterfinals at home sites in December. But a lot of people aren't. The losers aren't going to be enthused about going to a bowl game. You would almost have to have the losers play each other.

Can't see the loser of a playoff game going to a bowl game after that loss. NCAA basketball tournament losers don't jump into the NIT after being eliminated from the NCAA tournament. The bowls will have to make do with the 60 or 70 bowl-eligible teams that are not in the playoff. It's just another thing that boils down to money. If there's enough TV money involved, no one will be too bothered that the bowl guys get a team farther down the totem pole than the team they used to get.

Conference championship losers play in a bowl game in the current system. The conference championship games are similar to a pre-Final Four NCAA round.

TCU coach Gary Patterson proposed a CFP expansion that supplants the conference championship games. The money for a CFP quarterfinal round would likely be better than the money from the various CCGs.

https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/col...28585.html


I believe it would depend on when the CFP early round games were played as to whether CFP losers would still play in a bowl game.

FWIW, I love the idea to use Atlanta, DFW, Las Vegas, and Indianapolis as the CFP quarterfinal venues, with regional hosts, in lieu of CCGs. Based on 2018 pre-CCG rankings, this is what the CFP quarterfinals could have looked like:

PARTICIPANTS
(1)Alabama(12-0, SEC champ)
(2)Clemson(12-0, ACC champ)
(3)Notre Dame(12-0, at large)
(4)Georgia(11-1, at large)
(5)Oklahoma(11-1, B12 champ)
(6)Ohio State(11-1, B1G champ)
(8)UCF(11-0, G5 rep)
(11)Washington(9-3, PAC champ)

LEFT OUT: #7 Michigan (10-2)

QUARTERFINALS
December 1, 2018
Arlington:(1)Alabama v. (8)Washington
Atlanta: (2)Clemson v. (7)UCF
Indianapolis: (3)Notre Dame v. (6)Ohio St.
Las Vegas: (4)Georgia v. (5)Oklahoma

SEMIFINALS
December 29, 2018
COTTON BOWL:(2)Clemson v. (3)Notre Dame
ORANGE BOWL: (1)Alabama v. (4)Georgia

OTHER NY6 BOWL GAMES
December 29, 2018
(Based on pre-CCG rankings)
PEACH BOWL: #7 Michigan v. #10 LSU
January 1, 2019
ROSE BOWL: #11 Washington v. #6 Ohio St.
SUGAR BOWL: #5 Oklahoma v. #9 Florida
FIESTA BOWL: #8 UCF v. #12 Penn St.

The SEC CCG is far more lucrative than any quarter final figure kicked around and what's more we don't have to split it among other conference participants. It's a non starter for the SEC.

Yeah, it's the same with the Big Ten, too. The conference championship games in football aren't going away just as the conference tournaments in basketball aren't going away (even though those are arguably even more unnecessary for the power conferences with the NCAA Tournament format). These are money-making machines with revenue that 100% stays with that conference and doesn't need to be shared.

As I've stated previously, I believe that we'll eventually get to a playoff system with auto-bids (or maybe more appropriately "contract bids" as I'll note in a moment) for the 5 power conferences. There may or may not be a bid reserved for the top G5 team (I tend to think that there will be some type of rule for them). 2 or 3 at-larges still provide schools like Notre Dame or top tier schools that didn't happen to win their conferences some access and I believe will actually enhance the drama of the regular season (as there will be a lot more games with playoff implications compared to today) just as expansion to the 4-team playoff did (even though a lot of traditionalists argued otherwise at the time).

At the end of the day, I believe that an expansion of the system will have to be in *addition* to the current system as opposed to taking anything away. Removing a regular season game or any conference championship games is a 100% non-starter - any viable proposal must build on top of the existing structure without a single dime being taken away from the P5. To me, that still points to using the bowls as the quarterfinals and then having the semifinals and final in January as opposed to having the playoffs start in December.

Also, ultimately, what will drive an expansion of the playoff system is that the P5 conferences will want a *guaranteed* spot for each of their champs. A 99% chance isn't good enough - it needs to be 100% ironclad access for those teams without any caveats. We can debate all day whether that's right or wrong, but the entire driving force behind any 8-team expansion will be 100% reserved spots for the P5 champs. That's the only reason why leagues like the Big Ten (which openly argued *against* the 4-team playoff for decades) have within a short amount of time suddenly started talking about expanding the playoff.

Here's another key point: the bowls are the legal contractual mechanism that would allow for the P5 to have auto-bids while the G5 conferences don't get that benefit. Note that if the P5 just get together and collectively decide to create a playoff system where they should be the only ones that get auto-bids, then that's a potential antitrust issue. However, if each P5 conference individually signs an agreement to provide its champion to a contract bowl (e.g. Rose, Sugar, Orange, etc.) just as they have done for many years and then state that any G5 conference could join those ranks if they have the market power to get a similar agreement with a contract bowl, then it turns it into a free market-based system based on separate individual choices and agreements as opposed to a collective system system based on a single agreement (which is where anticompetitive legal issues come into play). That's why I still think the bowls will be used as the quarterfinals - that's where the P5 can get "contract bids" (with the guaranteed revenue that comes with such bids) in a manner that the G5 very likely won't and the P5 can argue that it's simply the free market at work (as opposed to collusion among the P5).

Regardless, just K.I.S.S. - 8-team playoffs with the 5 P5 champs, 1 G5 champ, and 2 at-larges using the traditional bowls as the quarterfinals. All of the half-measures (e.g. the suggestion of a 6-team playoff) or trying to define the "6 top conferences" is trying to introduce complexities to an expanded playoff system that don't really serve anyone well. Once again, if there's ever an 8-team playoff within our lifetimes (and I'm going to wager that there will be, and maybe sooner rather than later), it's going to be driven by the need (not just desire) to have all 5 power conference champions having 100% guaranteed ironclad spots in the at playoff. Anything less pretty much negates the M.O. for the powers that be in control of college football to make an expansion move.

Well reasoned, as I would expect. I particularly liked using the bowls as a means to prevent legal entanglements. So really in essence what you are proposing is a standard finish to the regular season and conference championships, but not defining the semi-finals until the contract bowls are over. Whether you use the bowls as a de facto quarter final, or an actual one, makes little difference in as much as either way they determine the final four.

I agree that each P5 will want a guaranteed slot, hopefully for their champions since that would add relevance back to the bowl contracts, but I'm not sure if we would be better off having 3 at large, or a G5 and two at large bids. Either way, the key as you stated is in adding to what conferences already hold, rather than requiring them to give up anything in exchange for expansion of the playoffs.

While I'm still not sure that realignment is over, I have to keep an open mind on whether another round of expansion will alter this potentiality. But even should we wind up eventually with a P4 there might be more to be gained with something like this with 4 contracted entrants and 4 at large.

It'll be interesting to see how 2023 comes and goes and to what degree it may alter this concept. But unless something like what you are suggesting is the plan, I see no motive for the Big 10, SEC, or the ACC to agree to expanded playoffs.

(04-18-2019 09:54 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 09:34 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 08:33 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Here are ESPN's odds for making the playoffs this coming season:

I like this view of things better than the graph you posted, it's more telling.

Good old Barry needs to shut his pie hole about this and just field a team worthy of the playoffs.

Courtesy of 247 sports:

TEAM - CHANCE TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS - CHANCE TO WIN THE NATIONAL TITLE

Clemson - 83% -36%

Alabama - 71% - 27%

Michigan - 41% - 7%

Georgia - 40% - 8%

Oklahoma - 35% - 5%

LSU - 32% - 6%

Notre Dame - 28% - 4%

Oregon - 14% - 1%

Florida - 10% - 1%

Penn State - 8% - <1%

Auburn - 7% - <1%

Ohio State - 6% - <1%

Michigan State - 5% - <1%

Washington - 4% - <1%

Texas A&M - 4% - <1%

Seems to think it’s gonna be a real down year for Texas. Georgia gets ND so I think if they win that it’s a 2 team SEC this year. Oklahoma will be there too.

Unless they lose week 1 to Houston again lmao

Yes, plus I didn't need to put 15 teams on this list. I wanted to stop after Notre Dame but I know some would have asked why only 7 teams listed.

Texas is interesting to me. I'm not sure why they aren't really mentioned?

Oregon is quite interesting too. I really don't know much about them but tend to think maybe their odds are a bit high? Maybe somebody could chime in with better knowledge.

My main point was that I'm so sick of these topics. Barry and whom ever else doesn't like it should field better teams. As always too, Jim Delany gets brought into this topic too. I thought the only thing big Jim ever mentioned was have a "discussion" with other commissioners and schools about the current state of the playoff? If someone has a link of him saying something other, please share. But, that doesn't say to me he's crying to expand as some here like you to believe.

Conferences don't play in playoff games, TEAMS (individual schools) do. What these numbers show me is that the SEC has the most TEAMS with a legitimate shot at the playoff. The ACC is still a one man show with Clemson. The BIG is heavy in the middle and the Big 12, I believe is a bit underappreciated. The PAC, well hopefully they have a sleeper or two.

Of course this is all speculation and it will change as early as 2 or 3 weeks in the season.

As of now though, Clemson and Alabama are the ones to beat. You listening Barry? Catch those two and all will be well with life in Madison.

I don't see the conference championships games going away. The playoff is about the best 4 teams, not most deserving, or best 4 conference champions. All conferences and divisions are not created equal. If that means there is 2 teams from say the SEC, ACC, or Big 10 so be it. I don't think there should be AQ in an expanded model, just pick the best 6 or 8 teams. There will likely be representation from at least 4 conference on most years. Right now we are in a time where Alabama, Clemson, and Georgia are playing at a very high level. Its up to the other schools to beat them. I'm not sure how Ohio State will be in post Urban Meyer, can Jim Harbaugh finally get Michigan to the playoff? Can Oklahoma win it all, is Texas ready to make a playoff run? Time will tell.

(04-18-2019 10:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Also, ultimately, what will drive an expansion of the playoff system is that the P5 conferences will want a *guaranteed* spot for each of their champs. A 99% chance isn't good enough - it needs to be 100% ironclad access for those teams without any caveats. We can debate all day whether that's right or wrong, but the entire driving force behind any 8-team expansion will be 100% reserved spots for the P5 champs.

....

Regardless, just K.I.S.S. - 8-team playoffs with the 5 P5 champs, 1 G5 champ, and 2 at-larges using the traditional bowls as the quarterfinals.

Some points come to mind:

1) I don't think the A5 are as tied to the notion of having a guaranteed spot for their champion as you seem to be. History suggests that they aren't, because they have always had the power to create such a system, and yet in all these decades of college football they never have. That suggests to me that it really isn't a big deal.

In fact, the whole structure of the BCS and the CFP has been to *divorce* entitlement from merit. Both systems have explicitly rejected giving conference champs a decisive edge. And they could have been designed that way. E.g., the BCS could have had a rule saying that the teams ranked #1 and #2 must be conference champs, and likewise the CFP could have a rule that instructs the committee that to finish in the top 4, a team *must* be a conference champ. But nope.

2) Along these same lines, if representation in the playoffs is a big deal, I don't see why we couldn't have a system that guarantees a spot for the highest-ranked team from each A5 conference, regardless of whether it is their champion. To the extent that representation is an issue, I think an A5 conference is far more concerned with getting *a* team in the playoffs, much less concerned that it be their champion.

I mean, what if a 7-5 Pitt team going nowhere had upset 12-0 Clemson in the ACC title game last year? Do you really think the ACC would have rather had Pitt make the playoffs than Clemson? I don't.

3) I would say the impetus for the B1G or any other A5 to expand to an eight-team playoff would be if there is significantly more money in it. That seemed to be the obvious motivation with the expansion from the BCS to the CFP - ESPN agreed to pay a lot more money for it.

4) I think there is a contradiction in your notion of a 5 - 1 - 2 system. Namely, that the idea of the top G5 team getting in is contrary to A5 representation interests.

As I pointed out earlier, had we had an 8 - 1 - 2 system the past six years, the result would have been three more AAC teams in the playoffs, 1 more MAC team, and 1 more MWC team, but three fewer B1G teams, two fewer SEC teams, and Notre Dame would have missed as well, compared to if there had been a "straight 8" system.

I just don't see the A5, particular the twin powers of the B1G and SEC, agreeing to a system that sacrifices playoff spots for them in favor of spots for the AAC and the MWC.

So while what I really think would happen would be a "straight 8" system, at best, I see a 5-3 system, with the highest-ranked team from each A5 conference, plus three wild cards.

(04-18-2019 10:52 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 09:54 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 09:34 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 08:33 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Here are ESPN's odds for making the playoffs this coming season:

I like this view of things better than the graph you posted, it's more telling.

Good old Barry needs to shut his pie hole about this and just field a team worthy of the playoffs.

Courtesy of 247 sports:

TEAM - CHANCE TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS - CHANCE TO WIN THE NATIONAL TITLE

Clemson - 83% -36%

Alabama - 71% - 27%

Michigan - 41% - 7%

Georgia - 40% - 8%

Oklahoma - 35% - 5%

LSU - 32% - 6%

Notre Dame - 28% - 4%

Oregon - 14% - 1%

Florida - 10% - 1%

Penn State - 8% - <1%

Auburn - 7% - <1%

Ohio State - 6% - <1%

Michigan State - 5% - <1%

Washington - 4% - <1%

Texas A&M - 4% - <1%

Seems to think it’s gonna be a real down year for Texas. Georgia gets ND so I think if they win that it’s a 2 team SEC this year. Oklahoma will be there too.

Unless they lose week 1 to Houston again lmao

Yes, plus I didn't need to put 15 teams on this list. I wanted to stop after Notre Dame but I know some would have asked why only 7 teams listed.

Texas is interesting to me. I'm not sure why they aren't really mentioned?

Oregon is quite interesting too. I really don't know much about them but tend to think maybe their odds are a bit high? Maybe somebody could chime in with better knowledge.

My main point was that I'm so sick of these topics. Barry and whom ever else doesn't like it should field better teams. As always too, Jim Delany gets brought into this topic too. I thought the only thing big Jim ever mentioned was have a "discussion" with other commissioners and schools about the current state of the playoff? If someone has a link of him saying something other, please share. But, that doesn't say to me he's crying to expand as some here like you to believe.

Conferences don't play in playoff games, TEAMS (individual schools) do. What these numbers show me is that the SEC has the most TEAMS with a legitimate shot at the playoff. The ACC is still a one man show with Clemson. The BIG is heavy in the middle and the Big 12, I believe is a bit underappreciated. The PAC, well hopefully they have a sleeper or two.

Of course this is all speculation and it will change as early as 2 or 3 weeks in the season.

As of now though, Clemson and Alabama are the ones to beat. You listening Barry? Catch those two and all will be well with life in Madison.

Texas needs another year. They are just very thin with several bad recruiting years under Charlie Strong. Excellent chance to be top 10 again. But going 13-0 or 12-1 will be difficult. 2 losses almost always leaves you out.

And to second what others have said, none of the conferences want to give up the money on the CCG that they control. They don't have to share that with any other conference. Eliminating CCGs or eliminating the 12th game (every school controls their own revenue on that) are just non-starters.

(04-18-2019 01:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 10:52 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 09:54 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 09:34 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 08:33 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Here are ESPN's odds for making the playoffs this coming season:

I like this view of things better than the graph you posted, it's more telling.

Good old Barry needs to shut his pie hole about this and just field a team worthy of the playoffs.

Courtesy of 247 sports:

TEAM - CHANCE TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS - CHANCE TO WIN THE NATIONAL TITLE

Clemson - 83% -36%

Alabama - 71% - 27%

Michigan - 41% - 7%

Georgia - 40% - 8%

Oklahoma - 35% - 5%

LSU - 32% - 6%

Notre Dame - 28% - 4%

Oregon - 14% - 1%

Florida - 10% - 1%

Penn State - 8% - <1%

Auburn - 7% - <1%

Ohio State - 6% - <1%

Michigan State - 5% - <1%

Washington - 4% - <1%

Texas A&M - 4% - <1%

Seems to think it’s gonna be a real down year for Texas. Georgia gets ND so I think if they win that it’s a 2 team SEC this year. Oklahoma will be there too.

Unless they lose week 1 to Houston again lmao

Yes, plus I didn't need to put 15 teams on this list. I wanted to stop after Notre Dame but I know some would have asked why only 7 teams listed.

Texas is interesting to me. I'm not sure why they aren't really mentioned?

Oregon is quite interesting too. I really don't know much about them but tend to think maybe their odds are a bit high? Maybe somebody could chime in with better knowledge.

My main point was that I'm so sick of these topics. Barry and whom ever else doesn't like it should field better teams. As always too, Jim Delany gets brought into this topic too. I thought the only thing big Jim ever mentioned was have a "discussion" with other commissioners and schools about the current state of the playoff? If someone has a link of him saying something other, please share. But, that doesn't say to me he's crying to expand as some here like you to believe.

Conferences don't play in playoff games, TEAMS (individual schools) do. What these numbers show me is that the SEC has the most TEAMS with a legitimate shot at the playoff. The ACC is still a one man show with Clemson. The BIG is heavy in the middle and the Big 12, I believe is a bit underappreciated. The PAC, well hopefully they have a sleeper or two.

Of course this is all speculation and it will change as early as 2 or 3 weeks in the season.

As of now though, Clemson and Alabama are the ones to beat. You listening Barry? Catch those two and all will be well with life in Madison.

Texas needs another year. They are just very thin with several bad recruiting years under Charlie Strong. Excellent chance to be top 10 again. But going 13-0 or 12-1 will be difficult. 2 losses almost always leaves you out.

And to second what others have said, none of the conferences want to give up the money on the CCG that they control. They don't have to share that with any other conference. Eliminating CCGs or eliminating the 12th game (every school controls their own revenue on that) are just non-starters.

Great points!

(04-18-2019 12:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 10:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Also, ultimately, what will drive an expansion of the playoff system is that the P5 conferences will want a *guaranteed* spot for each of their champs. A 99% chance isn't good enough - it needs to be 100% ironclad access for those teams without any caveats. We can debate all day whether that's right or wrong, but the entire driving force behind any 8-team expansion will be 100% reserved spots for the P5 champs.

....

Regardless, just K.I.S.S. - 8-team playoffs with the 5 P5 champs, 1 G5 champ, and 2 at-larges using the traditional bowls as the quarterfinals.

Some points come to mind:

1) I don't think the A5 are as tied to the notion of having a guaranteed spot for their champion as you seem to be. History suggests that they aren't, because they have always had the power to create such a system, and yet in all these decades of college football they never have. That suggests to me that it really isn't a big deal.

In fact, the whole structure of the BCS and the CFP has been to *divorce* entitlement from merit. Both systems have explicitly rejected giving conference champs a decisive edge. And they could have been designed that way. E.g., the BCS could have had a rule saying that the teams ranked #1 and #2 must be conference champs, and likewise the CFP could have a rule that instructs the committee that to finish in the top 4, a team *must* be a conference champ. But nope.

2) Along these same lines, if representation in the playoffs is a big deal, I don't see why we couldn't have a system that guarantees a spot for the highest-ranked team from each A5 conference, regardless of whether it is their champion. To the extent that representation is an issue, I think an A5 conference is far more concerned with getting *a* team in the playoffs, much less concerned that it be their champion.

I mean, what if a 7-5 Pitt team going nowhere had upset 12-0 Clemson in the ACC title game last year? Do you really think the ACC would have rather had Pitt make the playoffs than Clemson? I don't.

3) I would say the impetus for the B1G or any other A5 to expand to an eight-team playoff would be if there is significantly more money in it. That seemed to be the obvious motivation with the expansion from the BCS to the CFP - ESPN agreed to pay a lot more money for it.

4) I think there is a contradiction in your notion of a 5 - 1 - 2 system. Namely, that the idea of the top G5 team getting in is contrary to A5 representation interests.

As I pointed out earlier, had we had an 8 - 1 - 2 system the past six years, the result would have been three more AAC teams in the playoffs, 1 more MAC team, and 1 more MWC team, but three fewer B1G teams, two fewer SEC teams, and Notre Dame would have missed as well, compared to if there had been a "straight 8" system.

I just don't see the A5, particular the twin powers of the B1G and SEC, agreeing to a system that sacrifices playoff spots for them in favor of spots for the AAC and the MWC.

So while what I really think would happen would be a "straight 8" system, at best, I see a 5-3 system, with the highest-ranked team from each A5 conference, plus three wild cards.

I agree that the P5 don't want to give up spots to the G5 leagues. To the extent that occurs, it will essentially be forced upon them (e.g. legally, getting the G5 to agree to the overall system, etc.).

I'd disagree about the importance of champions, though. I believe that the P5 leagues besides maybe the SEC care heavily about their specific champion getting into the playoff every year (and that's generally because their champ has had the *least* to worry about over the past decade). You can even see it in the comments from Barry Alvarez from the OP - he literally doesn't count the time where Ohio State made it into the CFP as a non-champ in the same season where Penn State was the Big Ten champ. The ACC wants that Pitt upset to still count because that's what allows it to sell the ACC Championship Game as a literal playoff game to the TV networks that the ACC gets to receive 100% of the revenue for all of itself (and the same thing with respect to the other power conferences). It's just like how ALL of the conferences (big and small) send their conference tournament winner as their auto-bid to the NCAA Tournament as opposed to their regular season champs. They *need* those stakes in those conference tournaments in order to maximize revenue and that would be probably 10 or 20-fold in the case of football (where an 8-team playoff with auto-bids turns each P5 conference championship game into its own playoff game that creates a huge amount of revenue that the conferences don't have to share with each other). You have to take into account the increased value of the P5 conference championship games if there are auto-bids as that's critical to determining the revenue involved.

Also, the fact that auto-bids haven't happened already or in the past doesn't really matter here because the playoff currently and previously (whether the BCS or CFP) has never been large enough to accommodate all of the champions from the power conferences. So, of course there can't be auto-bids in the current system because it mathematically isn't possible (and it certainly wasn't possible under the BCS system). Note that both the BCS and CFP systems still featured contract bowls where each of the power conferences received an unambiguous bid (and more importantly, guaranteed payment), so the power conferences are very much about those guarantees. So, the BCS and CFP championship games have been on top of those guaranteed contract auto-bids that the power conferences have. I think the calculus changes a *huge* amount in an 8-team playoff because (a) the field will become large enough to take in all 5 power conference champs without ambiguity and (b) the fact that the 8-team playoff will most likely effectively replace the contract bowl system (and the money that comes with it) in a way that the CFP and BCS haven't done.

Guarantees, guarantees, guarantees. I keep seeing "the P5 will get bids in an 8-team playoff 'most' of the time without auto-bids" and that's simply not good enough. Yes, a 7-5 Pitt team absolutely needs to go to the playoff if it wins the ACC Championship without caveats... and then the ACC gets even more money by getting Clemson in as an at-large bid. The difference between a 100% guarantee for that 7-5 ACC champ and a 99% chance is what exercising power is all about.

(04-18-2019 10:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 10:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 07:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 05:30 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 01:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Can't see the loser of a playoff game going to a bowl game after that loss. NCAA basketball tournament losers don't jump into the NIT after being eliminated from the NCAA tournament. The bowls will have to make do with the 60 or 70 bowl-eligible teams that are not in the playoff. It's just another thing that boils down to money. If there's enough TV money involved, no one will be too bothered that the bowl guys get a team farther down the totem pole than the team they used to get.

Conference championship losers play in a bowl game in the current system. The conference championship games are similar to a pre-Final Four NCAA round.

TCU coach Gary Patterson proposed a CFP expansion that supplants the conference championship games. The money for a CFP quarterfinal round would likely be better than the money from the various CCGs.

https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/col...28585.html


I believe it would depend on when the CFP early round games were played as to whether CFP losers would still play in a bowl game.

FWIW, I love the idea to use Atlanta, DFW, Las Vegas, and Indianapolis as the CFP quarterfinal venues, with regional hosts, in lieu of CCGs. Based on 2018 pre-CCG rankings, this is what the CFP quarterfinals could have looked like:

PARTICIPANTS
(1)Alabama(12-0, SEC champ)
(2)Clemson(12-0, ACC champ)
(3)Notre Dame(12-0, at large)
(4)Georgia(11-1, at large)
(5)Oklahoma(11-1, B12 champ)
(6)Ohio State(11-1, B1G champ)
(8)UCF(11-0, G5 rep)
(11)Washington(9-3, PAC champ)

LEFT OUT: #7 Michigan (10-2)

QUARTERFINALS
December 1, 2018
Arlington:(1)Alabama v. (8)Washington
Atlanta: (2)Clemson v. (7)UCF
Indianapolis: (3)Notre Dame v. (6)Ohio St.
Las Vegas: (4)Georgia v. (5)Oklahoma

SEMIFINALS
December 29, 2018
COTTON BOWL:(2)Clemson v. (3)Notre Dame
ORANGE BOWL: (1)Alabama v. (4)Georgia

OTHER NY6 BOWL GAMES
December 29, 2018
(Based on pre-CCG rankings)
PEACH BOWL: #7 Michigan v. #10 LSU
January 1, 2019
ROSE BOWL: #11 Washington v. #6 Ohio St.
SUGAR BOWL: #5 Oklahoma v. #9 Florida
FIESTA BOWL: #8 UCF v. #12 Penn St.

The SEC CCG is far more lucrative than any quarter final figure kicked around and what's more we don't have to split it among other conference participants. It's a non starter for the SEC.

Yeah, it's the same with the Big Ten, too. The conference championship games in football aren't going away just as the conference tournaments in basketball aren't going away (even though those are arguably even more unnecessary for the power conferences with the NCAA Tournament format). These are money-making machines with revenue that 100% stays with that conference and doesn't need to be shared.

As I've stated previously, I believe that we'll eventually get to a playoff system with auto-bids (or maybe more appropriately "contract bids" as I'll note in a moment) for the 5 power conferences. There may or may not be a bid reserved for the top G5 team (I tend to think that there will be some type of rule for them). 2 or 3 at-larges still provide schools like Notre Dame or top tier schools that didn't happen to win their conferences some access and I believe will actually enhance the drama of the regular season (as there will be a lot more games with playoff implications compared to today) just as expansion to the 4-team playoff did (even though a lot of traditionalists argued otherwise at the time).

At the end of the day, I believe that an expansion of the system will have to be in *addition* to the current system as opposed to taking anything away. Removing a regular season game or any conference championship games is a 100% non-starter - any viable proposal must build on top of the existing structure without a single dime being taken away from the P5. To me, that still points to using the bowls as the quarterfinals and then having the semifinals and final in January as opposed to having the playoffs start in December.

Also, ultimately, what will drive an expansion of the playoff system is that the P5 conferences will want a *guaranteed* spot for each of their champs. A 99% chance isn't good enough - it needs to be 100% ironclad access for those teams without any caveats. We can debate all day whether that's right or wrong, but the entire driving force behind any 8-team expansion will be 100% reserved spots for the P5 champs. That's the only reason why leagues like the Big Ten (which openly argued *against* the 4-team playoff for decades) have within a short amount of time suddenly started talking about expanding the playoff.

Here's another key point: the bowls are the legal contractual mechanism that would allow for the P5 to have auto-bids while the G5 conferences don't get that benefit. Note that if the P5 just get together and collectively decide to create a playoff system where they should be the only ones that get auto-bids, then that's a potential antitrust issue. However, if each P5 conference individually signs an agreement to provide its champion to a contract bowl (e.g. Rose, Sugar, Orange, etc.) just as they have done for many years and then state that any G5 conference could join those ranks if they have the market power to get a similar agreement with a contract bowl, then it turns it into a free market-based system based on separate individual choices and agreements as opposed to a collective system system based on a single agreement (which is where anticompetitive legal issues come into play). That's why I still think the bowls will be used as the quarterfinals - that's where the P5 can get "contract bids" (with the guaranteed revenue that comes with such bids) in a manner that the G5 very likely won't and the P5 can argue that it's simply the free market at work (as opposed to collusion among the P5).

Regardless, just K.I.S.S. - 8-team playoffs with the 5 P5 champs, 1 G5 champ, and 2 at-larges using the traditional bowls as the quarterfinals. All of the half-measures (e.g. the suggestion of a 6-team playoff) or trying to define the "6 top conferences" is trying to introduce complexities to an expanded playoff system that don't really serve anyone well. Once again, if there's ever an 8-team playoff within our lifetimes (and I'm going to wager that there will be, and maybe sooner rather than later), it's going to be driven by the need (not just desire) to have all 5 power conference champions having 100% guaranteed ironclad spots in the at playoff. Anything less pretty much negates the M.O. for the powers that be in control of college football to make an expansion move.

Well reasoned, as I would expect. I particularly liked using the bowls as a means to prevent legal entanglements. So really in essence what you are proposing is a standard finish to the regular season and conference championships, but not defining the semi-finals until the contract bowls are over. Whether you use the bowls as a de facto quarter final, or an actual one, makes little difference in as much as either way they determine the final four.

I agree that each P5 will want a guaranteed slot, hopefully for their champions since that would add relevance back to the bowl contracts, but I'm not sure if we would be better off having 3 at large, or a G5 and two at large bids. Either way, the key as you stated is in adding to what conferences already hold, rather than requiring them to give up anything in exchange for expansion of the playoffs.

While I'm still not sure that realignment is over, I have to keep an open mind on whether another round of expansion will alter this potentiality. But even should we wind up eventually with a P4 there might be more to be gained with something like this with 4 contracted entrants and 4 at large.

It'll be interesting to see how 2023 comes and goes and to what degree it may alter this concept. But unless something like what you are suggesting is the plan, I see no motive for the Big 10, SEC, or the ACC to agree to expanded playoffs.

This seems to suggest that you are in favor of letting the free market control bowls--ultimately the big conferences will get all the lucrative bids. Then after the last bowl gets played, picking 4 teams to participate in a playoff. Is that what you are hinting at?

(04-18-2019 04:17 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 10:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 10:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 07:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 05:30 PM)YNot Wrote:  Conference championship losers play in a bowl game in the current system. The conference championship games are similar to a pre-Final Four NCAA round.

TCU coach Gary Patterson proposed a CFP expansion that supplants the conference championship games. The money for a CFP quarterfinal round would likely be better than the money from the various CCGs.

https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/col...28585.html


I believe it would depend on when the CFP early round games were played as to whether CFP losers would still play in a bowl game.

FWIW, I love the idea to use Atlanta, DFW, Las Vegas, and Indianapolis as the CFP quarterfinal venues, with regional hosts, in lieu of CCGs. Based on 2018 pre-CCG rankings, this is what the CFP quarterfinals could have looked like:

PARTICIPANTS
(1)Alabama(12-0, SEC champ)
(2)Clemson(12-0, ACC champ)
(3)Notre Dame(12-0, at large)
(4)Georgia(11-1, at large)
(5)Oklahoma(11-1, B12 champ)
(6)Ohio State(11-1, B1G champ)
(8)UCF(11-0, G5 rep)
(11)Washington(9-3, PAC champ)

LEFT OUT: #7 Michigan (10-2)

QUARTERFINALS
December 1, 2018
Arlington:(1)Alabama v. (8)Washington
Atlanta: (2)Clemson v. (7)UCF
Indianapolis: (3)Notre Dame v. (6)Ohio St.
Las Vegas: (4)Georgia v. (5)Oklahoma

SEMIFINALS
December 29, 2018
COTTON BOWL:(2)Clemson v. (3)Notre Dame
ORANGE BOWL: (1)Alabama v. (4)Georgia

OTHER NY6 BOWL GAMES
December 29, 2018
(Based on pre-CCG rankings)
PEACH BOWL: #7 Michigan v. #10 LSU
January 1, 2019
ROSE BOWL: #11 Washington v. #6 Ohio St.
SUGAR BOWL: #5 Oklahoma v. #9 Florida
FIESTA BOWL: #8 UCF v. #12 Penn St.

The SEC CCG is far more lucrative than any quarter final figure kicked around and what's more we don't have to split it among other conference participants. It's a non starter for the SEC.

Yeah, it's the same with the Big Ten, too. The conference championship games in football aren't going away just as the conference tournaments in basketball aren't going away (even though those are arguably even more unnecessary for the power conferences with the NCAA Tournament format). These are money-making machines with revenue that 100% stays with that conference and doesn't need to be shared.

As I've stated previously, I believe that we'll eventually get to a playoff system with auto-bids (or maybe more appropriately "contract bids" as I'll note in a moment) for the 5 power conferences. There may or may not be a bid reserved for the top G5 team (I tend to think that there will be some type of rule for them). 2 or 3 at-larges still provide schools like Notre Dame or top tier schools that didn't happen to win their conferences some access and I believe will actually enhance the drama of the regular season (as there will be a lot more games with playoff implications compared to today) just as expansion to the 4-team playoff did (even though a lot of traditionalists argued otherwise at the time).

At the end of the day, I believe that an expansion of the system will have to be in *addition* to the current system as opposed to taking anything away. Removing a regular season game or any conference championship games is a 100% non-starter - any viable proposal must build on top of the existing structure without a single dime being taken away from the P5. To me, that still points to using the bowls as the quarterfinals and then having the semifinals and final in January as opposed to having the playoffs start in December.

Also, ultimately, what will drive an expansion of the playoff system is that the P5 conferences will want a *guaranteed* spot for each of their champs. A 99% chance isn't good enough - it needs to be 100% ironclad access for those teams without any caveats. We can debate all day whether that's right or wrong, but the entire driving force behind any 8-team expansion will be 100% reserved spots for the P5 champs. That's the only reason why leagues like the Big Ten (which openly argued *against* the 4-team playoff for decades) have within a short amount of time suddenly started talking about expanding the playoff.

Here's another key point: the bowls are the legal contractual mechanism that would allow for the P5 to have auto-bids while the G5 conferences don't get that benefit. Note that if the P5 just get together and collectively decide to create a playoff system where they should be the only ones that get auto-bids, then that's a potential antitrust issue. However, if each P5 conference individually signs an agreement to provide its champion to a contract bowl (e.g. Rose, Sugar, Orange, etc.) just as they have done for many years and then state that any G5 conference could join those ranks if they have the market power to get a similar agreement with a contract bowl, then it turns it into a free market-based system based on separate individual choices and agreements as opposed to a collective system system based on a single agreement (which is where anticompetitive legal issues come into play). That's why I still think the bowls will be used as the quarterfinals - that's where the P5 can get "contract bids" (with the guaranteed revenue that comes with such bids) in a manner that the G5 very likely won't and the P5 can argue that it's simply the free market at work (as opposed to collusion among the P5).

Regardless, just K.I.S.S. - 8-team playoffs with the 5 P5 champs, 1 G5 champ, and 2 at-larges using the traditional bowls as the quarterfinals. All of the half-measures (e.g. the suggestion of a 6-team playoff) or trying to define the "6 top conferences" is trying to introduce complexities to an expanded playoff system that don't really serve anyone well. Once again, if there's ever an 8-team playoff within our lifetimes (and I'm going to wager that there will be, and maybe sooner rather than later), it's going to be driven by the need (not just desire) to have all 5 power conference champions having 100% guaranteed ironclad spots in the at playoff. Anything less pretty much negates the M.O. for the powers that be in control of college football to make an expansion move.

Well reasoned, as I would expect. I particularly liked using the bowls as a means to prevent legal entanglements. So really in essence what you are proposing is a standard finish to the regular season and conference championships, but not defining the semi-finals until the contract bowls are over. Whether you use the bowls as a de facto quarter final, or an actual one, makes little difference in as much as either way they determine the final four.

I agree that each P5 will want a guaranteed slot, hopefully for their champions since that would add relevance back to the bowl contracts, but I'm not sure if we would be better off having 3 at large, or a G5 and two at large bids. Either way, the key as you stated is in adding to what conferences already hold, rather than requiring them to give up anything in exchange for expansion of the playoffs.

While I'm still not sure that realignment is over, I have to keep an open mind on whether another round of expansion will alter this potentiality. But even should we wind up eventually with a P4 there might be more to be gained with something like this with 4 contracted entrants and 4 at large.

It'll be interesting to see how 2023 comes and goes and to what degree it may alter this concept. But unless something like what you are suggesting is the plan, I see no motive for the Big 10, SEC, or the ACC to agree to expanded playoffs.

This seems to suggest that you are in favor of letting the free market control bowls--ultimately the big conferences will get all the lucrative bids. Then after the last bowl gets played, picking 4 teams to participate in a playoff. Is that what you are hinting at?

Yes, sort of. Right now the G5 has a tie in to a NY6 bowl. So the top contract bowls, as Frank is suggesting, become essentially the quarter finals. Expand the NY6 to a NY7 and you have it. Except that in rotation one of them will play the 2 weeks after New Years and two of them in rotation will play 1 week after New Years and 4 will play on New Years. Then the CFP takes the four winners and that becomes a 2 week playoff for the championship utilizing the bowls for semis and finals.

The NY7 bowls regain relevance over and above the two now utilized for the CFP first round, 8 teams have a chance to play their way in including the top G5 for the year, and if we begin with the 5 P conference champs that still leaves wiggle room for 2 at large.

The timeline is not thrown off for CCGs, Bowls, and no oxen are gored. The only difference is that now we add 1 week.

If we are going to have playoff expansion this plan is the best one I've seen to accomplish it. The P5 are satisfied, the G5 top team is included, and the P5 will each wangle for those 2 at large spots which theoretically satisfies the SEC and Big 10.

The biggest obstacle then becomes having a fan base travel for the CCG, and three bowls. A lottery for tickets could be one way to address this potential for travel and financial fatigue.

Really good info coming from this thread. Opened my eyes a bit to different scenarios.

Hated it when I first seen the topic, but it's been quite enjoyable as I've read through it.

(04-17-2019 08:40 PM)goofus Wrote:  If they stick with 4 teams, they need to re-emphasize the importance of winning conference championships.

It should be the 4 most deserving teams, not necessarily the 4 best teams. Every team in a P5 conference gets a shot. If they finish undefeated, they are almost guaranteed a shot at the playoffs. Now if you lose your conference, well, you had your shot, sorry.

The selection committee made a big mistake in 2016 when they chose Ohio State over a conference champion. No way OSU should have been chosen over PSU, who won the Big Ten and beat OSU head to head. Was PSU actually better? That's debatable but they won the right games when they needed to, and OSU did not, and Michigan did not.

Same in 2017. Bama should not have been chosen over a conference champion. Bama had their shot and they blew it. Does it matter that they went on to win the national championship? No, because first they should have won their conference. They did not deserve to play for a national championship.

They really should emphasize picking the 4 best conference champions. At the same time maybe they should tweak the rules for the CCG to help make sure the 2 best teams are playing in the CCG, and change it so that Notre Dame can play in the ACC CCG.

Twice in less than 10 years, Alabama found their way into the championship game. I think it was 2009 that they finished 3rd place in the conference, but the BCS system placed them in to faced LSU again, and the system screwed Oklahoma State. Oklahoma State was treated like Utah, TCU, Boise State, Tulane, Hawaii, Western Michigan and UCF. We know who they favor in the P5 conferences are. If you look at that they choose blue blood programs over others.

(04-18-2019 12:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 10:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Also, ultimately, what will drive an expansion of the playoff system is that the P5 conferences will want a *guaranteed* spot for each of their champs. A 99% chance isn't good enough - it needs to be 100% ironclad access for those teams without any caveats. We can debate all day whether that's right or wrong, but the entire driving force behind any 8-team expansion will be 100% reserved spots for the P5 champs.

....

Regardless, just K.I.S.S. - 8-team playoffs with the 5 P5 champs, 1 G5 champ, and 2 at-larges using the traditional bowls as the quarterfinals.

Some points come to mind:

1) I don't think the A5 are as tied to the notion of having a guaranteed spot for their champion as you seem to be. History suggests that they aren't, because they have always had the power to create such a system, and yet in all these decades of college football they never have. That suggests to me that it really isn't a big deal.

In fact, the whole structure of the BCS and the CFP has been to *divorce* entitlement from merit. Both systems have explicitly rejected giving conference champs a decisive edge. And they could have been designed that way. E.g., the BCS could have had a rule saying that the teams ranked #1 and #2 must be conference champs, and likewise the CFP could have a rule that instructs the committee that to finish in the top 4, a team *must* be a conference champ. But nope.

There are for all intents and purposes these days 6 major bowl games. An A5 champion no matter how they finish the regular season will get sent to one of these bowl games.

Let's expand the CFP to 8. That would require quarterfinals and to be able to pull off a rotation of bowls hosting that would likely mean 8 major bowl games rotating to host the quarterfinals every other year.

Does this mean the A5 should have autobids to the CFP or the NY8? Is 8 still a manageable enough setup without autobids for the A5? The public I think could follow a weekly Top 10 discussion of 8 teams that belong in the playoff. The polls stay relevant and interesting.

If the A5 moves to autobids for the CFP its going to become like college basketball where nobody tunes in until March and the ranking system is meaningless because placement to the CFP happens through a championship game. Except I suppose for the 2 at-larges in a 5-1-2.

However I wouldn't be surprised if the debate on whether to grant autobids or not to an 8 team playoff ends up stopping an 8 team from happening. SEC may be hell no to autobids out of fear it could bump some of its teams in the playoff.

The compromise might be to expand CFP revenue moving from a NY6 to an NY8. On an 8 year contract each NY8 bowl would have to host the semifinals only 2 times. That could be appealing to the B1G with the Rose. Four more slots in a major bowl game could also be appealing to smaller programs of the A5 and provide independents with greater access.

A lot of the non-major bowls with traditional NYD time slots are struggling with attendance so elevating a few to the major status would help to revitalize them IMO.

(04-18-2019 01:16 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 12:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 10:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Also, ultimately, what will drive an expansion of the playoff system is that the P5 conferences will want a *guaranteed* spot for each of their champs. A 99% chance isn't good enough - it needs to be 100% ironclad access for those teams without any caveats. We can debate all day whether that's right or wrong, but the entire driving force behind any 8-team expansion will be 100% reserved spots for the P5 champs.

....

Regardless, just K.I.S.S. - 8-team playoffs with the 5 P5 champs, 1 G5 champ, and 2 at-larges using the traditional bowls as the quarterfinals.

Some points come to mind:

1) I don't think the A5 are as tied to the notion of having a guaranteed spot for their champion as you seem to be. History suggests that they aren't, because they have always had the power to create such a system, and yet in all these decades of college football they never have. That suggests to me that it really isn't a big deal.

In fact, the whole structure of the BCS and the CFP has been to *divorce* entitlement from merit. Both systems have explicitly rejected giving conference champs a decisive edge. And they could have been designed that way. E.g., the BCS could have had a rule saying that the teams ranked #1 and #2 must be conference champs, and likewise the CFP could have a rule that instructs the committee that to finish in the top 4, a team *must* be a conference champ. But nope.

2) Along these same lines, if representation in the playoffs is a big deal, I don't see why we couldn't have a system that guarantees a spot for the highest-ranked team from each A5 conference, regardless of whether it is their champion. To the extent that representation is an issue, I think an A5 conference is far more concerned with getting *a* team in the playoffs, much less concerned that it be their champion.

I mean, what if a 7-5 Pitt team going nowhere had upset 12-0 Clemson in the ACC title game last year? Do you really think the ACC would have rather had Pitt make the playoffs than Clemson? I don't.

3) I would say the impetus for the B1G or any other A5 to expand to an eight-team playoff would be if there is significantly more money in it. That seemed to be the obvious motivation with the expansion from the BCS to the CFP - ESPN agreed to pay a lot more money for it.

4) I think there is a contradiction in your notion of a 5 - 1 - 2 system. Namely, that the idea of the top G5 team getting in is contrary to A5 representation interests.

As I pointed out earlier, had we had an 8 - 1 - 2 system the past six years, the result would have been three more AAC teams in the playoffs, 1 more MAC team, and 1 more MWC team, but three fewer B1G teams, two fewer SEC teams, and Notre Dame would have missed as well, compared to if there had been a "straight 8" system.

I just don't see the A5, particular the twin powers of the B1G and SEC, agreeing to a system that sacrifices playoff spots for them in favor of spots for the AAC and the MWC.

So while what I really think would happen would be a "straight 8" system, at best, I see a 5-3 system, with the highest-ranked team from each A5 conference, plus three wild cards.

I agree that the P5 don't want to give up spots to the G5 leagues. To the extent that occurs, it will essentially be forced upon them (e.g. legally, getting the G5 to agree to the overall system, etc.).

Frank for many decades it just was about what you are saying here; the A5 programs structured themselves in such a way by refusing to play the smaller conference to perpetuate their dominance.

Today its just about greenbacks. Expanding the NY6 to an NY8 or NY10 will increase the total value of the CFP contract. What is to stop the G5 taking a smaller cut (20 mill per bowl) to get their champs autobids?

(04-18-2019 08:27 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 01:16 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 12:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 10:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Also, ultimately, what will drive an expansion of the playoff system is that the P5 conferences will want a *guaranteed* spot for each of their champs. A 99% chance isn't good enough - it needs to be 100% ironclad access for those teams without any caveats. We can debate all day whether that's right or wrong, but the entire driving force behind any 8-team expansion will be 100% reserved spots for the P5 champs.

....

Regardless, just K.I.S.S. - 8-team playoffs with the 5 P5 champs, 1 G5 champ, and 2 at-larges using the traditional bowls as the quarterfinals.

Some points come to mind:

1) I don't think the A5 are as tied to the notion of having a guaranteed spot for their champion as you seem to be. History suggests that they aren't, because they have always had the power to create such a system, and yet in all these decades of college football they never have. That suggests to me that it really isn't a big deal.

In fact, the whole structure of the BCS and the CFP has been to *divorce* entitlement from merit. Both systems have explicitly rejected giving conference champs a decisive edge. And they could have been designed that way. E.g., the BCS could have had a rule saying that the teams ranked #1 and #2 must be conference champs, and likewise the CFP could have a rule that instructs the committee that to finish in the top 4, a team *must* be a conference champ. But nope.

2) Along these same lines, if representation in the playoffs is a big deal, I don't see why we couldn't have a system that guarantees a spot for the highest-ranked team from each A5 conference, regardless of whether it is their champion. To the extent that representation is an issue, I think an A5 conference is far more concerned with getting *a* team in the playoffs, much less concerned that it be their champion.

I mean, what if a 7-5 Pitt team going nowhere had upset 12-0 Clemson in the ACC title game last year? Do you really think the ACC would have rather had Pitt make the playoffs than Clemson? I don't.

3) I would say the impetus for the B1G or any other A5 to expand to an eight-team playoff would be if there is significantly more money in it. That seemed to be the obvious motivation with the expansion from the BCS to the CFP - ESPN agreed to pay a lot more money for it.

4) I think there is a contradiction in your notion of a 5 - 1 - 2 system. Namely, that the idea of the top G5 team getting in is contrary to A5 representation interests.

As I pointed out earlier, had we had an 8 - 1 - 2 system the past six years, the result would have been three more AAC teams in the playoffs, 1 more MAC team, and 1 more MWC team, but three fewer B1G teams, two fewer SEC teams, and Notre Dame would have missed as well, compared to if there had been a "straight 8" system.

I just don't see the A5, particular the twin powers of the B1G and SEC, agreeing to a system that sacrifices playoff spots for them in favor of spots for the AAC and the MWC.

So while what I really think would happen would be a "straight 8" system, at best, I see a 5-3 system, with the highest-ranked team from each A5 conference, plus three wild cards.

I agree that the P5 don't want to give up spots to the G5 leagues. To the extent that occurs, it will essentially be forced upon them (e.g. legally, getting the G5 to agree to the overall system, etc.).

Frank for many decades it just was about what you are saying here; the A5 programs structured themselves in such a way by refusing to play the smaller conference to perpetuate their dominance.

Today its just about greenbacks. Expanding the NY6 to an NY8 or NY10 will increase the total value of the CFP contract. What is to stop the G5 taking a smaller cut (20 mill per bowl) to get their champs autobids?

These first few years have demonstrated they can barely support a NY6. They have a hard time finding decent time slots. While not probable, its not inconceivable it slips back to a NY5.

(04-18-2019 09:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 08:27 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 01:16 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 12:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 10:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Also, ultimately, what will drive an expansion of the playoff system is that the P5 conferences will want a *guaranteed* spot for each of their champs. A 99% chance isn't good enough - it needs to be 100% ironclad access for those teams without any caveats. We can debate all day whether that's right or wrong, but the entire driving force behind any 8-team expansion will be 100% reserved spots for the P5 champs.

....

Regardless, just K.I.S.S. - 8-team playoffs with the 5 P5 champs, 1 G5 champ, and 2 at-larges using the traditional bowls as the quarterfinals.

Some points come to mind:

1) I don't think the A5 are as tied to the notion of having a guaranteed spot for their champion as you seem to be. History suggests that they aren't, because they have always had the power to create such a system, and yet in all these decades of college football they never have. That suggests to me that it really isn't a big deal.

In fact, the whole structure of the BCS and the CFP has been to *divorce* entitlement from merit. Both systems have explicitly rejected giving conference champs a decisive edge. And they could have been designed that way. E.g., the BCS could have had a rule saying that the teams ranked #1 and #2 must be conference champs, and likewise the CFP could have a rule that instructs the committee that to finish in the top 4, a team *must* be a conference champ. But nope.

2) Along these same lines, if representation in the playoffs is a big deal, I don't see why we couldn't have a system that guarantees a spot for the highest-ranked team from each A5 conference, regardless of whether it is their champion. To the extent that representation is an issue, I think an A5 conference is far more concerned with getting *a* team in the playoffs, much less concerned that it be their champion.

I mean, what if a 7-5 Pitt team going nowhere had upset 12-0 Clemson in the ACC title game last year? Do you really think the ACC would have rather had Pitt make the playoffs than Clemson? I don't.

3) I would say the impetus for the B1G or any other A5 to expand to an eight-team playoff would be if there is significantly more money in it. That seemed to be the obvious motivation with the expansion from the BCS to the CFP - ESPN agreed to pay a lot more money for it.

4) I think there is a contradiction in your notion of a 5 - 1 - 2 system. Namely, that the idea of the top G5 team getting in is contrary to A5 representation interests.

As I pointed out earlier, had we had an 8 - 1 - 2 system the past six years, the result would have been three more AAC teams in the playoffs, 1 more MAC team, and 1 more MWC team, but three fewer B1G teams, two fewer SEC teams, and Notre Dame would have missed as well, compared to if there had been a "straight 8" system.

I just don't see the A5, particular the twin powers of the B1G and SEC, agreeing to a system that sacrifices playoff spots for them in favor of spots for the AAC and the MWC.

So while what I really think would happen would be a "straight 8" system, at best, I see a 5-3 system, with the highest-ranked team from each A5 conference, plus three wild cards.

I agree that the P5 don't want to give up spots to the G5 leagues. To the extent that occurs, it will essentially be forced upon them (e.g. legally, getting the G5 to agree to the overall system, etc.).

Frank for many decades it just was about what you are saying here; the A5 programs structured themselves in such a way by refusing to play the smaller conference to perpetuate their dominance.

Today its just about greenbacks. Expanding the NY6 to an NY8 or NY10 will increase the total value of the CFP contract. What is to stop the G5 taking a smaller cut (20 mill per bowl) to get their champs autobids?

These first few years have demonstrated they can barely support a NY6. They have a hard time finding decent time slots. While not probable, its not inconceivable it slips back to a NY5.

This is a good point.

Could the NY6 or NY8 have a couple games moved back to 12/29 or 12/28 to make the timeslots work more smoothly?

What if the CFP next time around isn't completely awarded to one network?

Fox and ESPN splitting the quarterfinals for example.

(04-18-2019 01:16 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 12:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 10:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Also, ultimately, what will drive an expansion of the playoff system is that the P5 conferences will want a *guaranteed* spot for each of their champs. A 99% chance isn't good enough - it needs to be 100% ironclad access for those teams without any caveats. We can debate all day whether that's right or wrong, but the entire driving force behind any 8-team expansion will be 100% reserved spots for the P5 champs.

....

Regardless, just K.I.S.S. - 8-team playoffs with the 5 P5 champs, 1 G5 champ, and 2 at-larges using the traditional bowls as the quarterfinals.

Some points come to mind:

1) I don't think the A5 are as tied to the notion of having a guaranteed spot for their champion as you seem to be. History suggests that they aren't, because they have always had the power to create such a system, and yet in all these decades of college football they never have. That suggests to me that it really isn't a big deal.

In fact, the whole structure of the BCS and the CFP has been to *divorce* entitlement from merit. Both systems have explicitly rejected giving conference champs a decisive edge. And they could have been designed that way. E.g., the BCS could have had a rule saying that the teams ranked #1 and #2 must be conference champs, and likewise the CFP could have a rule that instructs the committee that to finish in the top 4, a team *must* be a conference champ. But nope.

2) Along these same lines, if representation in the playoffs is a big deal, I don't see why we couldn't have a system that guarantees a spot for the highest-ranked team from each A5 conference, regardless of whether it is their champion. To the extent that representation is an issue, I think an A5 conference is far more concerned with getting *a* team in the playoffs, much less concerned that it be their champion.

I mean, what if a 7-5 Pitt team going nowhere had upset 12-0 Clemson in the ACC title game last year? Do you really think the ACC would have rather had Pitt make the playoffs than Clemson? I don't.

3) I would say the impetus for the B1G or any other A5 to expand to an eight-team playoff would be if there is significantly more money in it. That seemed to be the obvious motivation with the expansion from the BCS to the CFP - ESPN agreed to pay a lot more money for it.

4) I think there is a contradiction in your notion of a 5 - 1 - 2 system. Namely, that the idea of the top G5 team getting in is contrary to A5 representation interests.

As I pointed out earlier, had we had an 8 - 1 - 2 system the past six years, the result would have been three more AAC teams in the playoffs, 1 more MAC team, and 1 more MWC team, but three fewer B1G teams, two fewer SEC teams, and Notre Dame would have missed as well, compared to if there had been a "straight 8" system.

I just don't see the A5, particular the twin powers of the B1G and SEC, agreeing to a system that sacrifices playoff spots for them in favor of spots for the AAC and the MWC.

So while what I really think would happen would be a "straight 8" system, at best, I see a 5-3 system, with the highest-ranked team from each A5 conference, plus three wild cards.

I agree that the P5 don't want to give up spots to the G5 leagues. To the extent that occurs, it will essentially be forced upon them (e.g. legally, getting the G5 to agree to the overall system, etc.).

I'd disagree about the importance of champions, though. I believe that the P5 leagues besides maybe the SEC care heavily about their specific champion getting into the playoff every year (and that's generally because their champ has had the *least* to worry about over the past decade). You can even see it in the comments from Barry Alvarez from the OP - he literally doesn't count the time where Ohio State made it into the CFP as a non-champ in the same season where Penn State was the Big Ten champ. The ACC wants that Pitt upset to still count because that's what allows it to sell the ACC Championship Game as a literal playoff game to the TV networks that the ACC gets to receive 100% of the revenue for all of itself (and the same thing with respect to the other power conferences). It's just like how ALL of the conferences (big and small) send their conference tournament winner as their auto-bid to the NCAA Tournament as opposed to their regular season champs. They *need* those stakes in those conference tournaments in order to maximize revenue and that would be probably 10 or 20-fold in the case of football (where an 8-team playoff with auto-bids turns each P5 conference championship game into its own playoff game that creates a huge amount of revenue that the conferences don't have to share with each other). You have to take into account the increased value of the P5 conference championship games if there are auto-bids as that's critical to determining the revenue involved.

Also, the fact that auto-bids haven't happened already or in the past doesn't really matter here because the playoff currently and previously (whether the BCS or CFP) has never been large enough to accommodate all of the champions from the power conferences. So, of course there can't be auto-bids in the current system because it mathematically isn't possible (and it certainly wasn't possible under the BCS system). Note that both the BCS and CFP systems still featured contract bowls where each of the power conferences received an unambiguous bid (and more importantly, guaranteed payment), so the power conferences are very much about those guarantees. So, the BCS and CFP championship games have been on top of those guaranteed contract auto-bids that the power conferences have. I think the calculus changes a *huge* amount in an 8-team playoff because (a) the field will become large enough to take in all 5 power conference champs without ambiguity and (b) the fact that the 8-team playoff will most likely effectively replace the contract bowl system (and the money that comes with it) in a way that the CFP and BCS haven't done.

Guarantees, guarantees, guarantees. I keep seeing "the P5 will get bids in an 8-team playoff 'most' of the time without auto-bids" and that's simply not good enough. Yes, a 7-5 Pitt team absolutely needs to go to the playoff if it wins the ACC Championship without caveats... and then the ACC gets even more money by getting Clemson in as an at-large bid. The difference between a 100% guarantee for that 7-5 ACC champ and a 99% chance is what exercising power is all about.

1) IMO, your legal point is another good reason for the A5 to adopt a "straight 8" model rather than one that guarantees spots for A5 champs, as giving the A5 champs each an autobid could make them legally vulnerable in an anti-trust sense. As long as it is straight 8, nobody has a formal advantage in terms of playoff participation. IMO, a 5-1-2 system doesn't obviate that, because it gives each A5 a guaranteed spot but doesn't do so for each G5.

2) I still don't see anything in your argument that negates the point that if having their champ in a playoff is so vital to the A5 conferences than why have they never created such a system in 120 years of football? They could have done so at any time, there was no law that said they had to progress from a 2-team playoff to a 4-team playoff, etc. This suggests to me that it isn't a big priority.

As for Alvarez, I think you are being generous to him. I think it's clear he just screwed up, misremembered, as he never mentions "conference champions" in his comments, which it would seem obvious he would do if that was what concerned him. But what seemed to concern him was the B1G missing the playoffs. In fairness to him, those two years seem like longer, because the B1G hasn't won a playoff game since 2014 when Ohio State won the inaugural CFP.

3) And, I do think it telling that the BCS and CFP haven't had provisions for conference champs. Even though mathematically it is impossible for all the A5 champs to be included in either the BCS or CFP (again, telling in itself that they would create systems that created that impossibility), it was still possible for the A5 to express their alleged profound concern for conference champs in those systems, as they could have put in place stronger rules that would ensure that the participants in the BCS and CFP would be conference champs even though not all could get in. But they didn't do that.

4) Money of course will be a critical driver here. Ultimately, whether we get an 8-team playoff of any sort will depend on what ESPN, FOX, CBS, etc. are willing to pay for it. On that note, regarding the 5-1-2 plan, I think it is instructive about who would have gotten in had such a plan existed the last six years: Compared to straight 8, 3 more AAC, 1 more MAC, and 1 more MWC teams get in, while 3 B1G, 2 SEC, and Notre Dame are left out.

I don't think the networks like that any more than the A5 would.

Ultimately, this is a "we shall see" situation, so ... we shall see what happens. But for the reasons given i think that if an 8-team playoff is adopted, a straight-8 system is most likely. It is legally the most bullet-proof, and it is consistent with past systems that valued merit over inclusivity.

(04-17-2019 04:23 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 04:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The solution is an 8 team playoff---the 5-1-2 model. The 5 P5 champs, a conditional slot for the highest ranked G5 winner, and 2 at large berths.

The NY6 bowls can serve as the quarter and semi-final sites. Quarter finals are played on or around New Years Day. Semis are played mid-January. National title the Saturday night before the Super Bowl. The Semi-final sites will still hold a bowl on/near NYD pitting 4 of the best non-playoff teams, with geography/traditional tie ins. (i.e. If the Rose Bowl is a quarterfinal host site on New Years Day they'd host the top Big Ten and Pac 12 team not in the playoff)

Notre Dame would not like this change.

They always can go all in with the ACC, it's their call and no more special rules. As in the original CFP for independents getting 1.5% of the pool and all other independents, including BYU, Army and all the new ones, Liberty, UMass, New Mexico State etc, split 0.5%.

From what the other posters are saying, ND posters are no asking for special rules and would be fine with the 2 at-large bids.

(04-19-2019 10:16 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 04:23 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 04:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The solution is an 8 team playoff---the 5-1-2 model. The 5 P5 champs, a conditional slot for the highest ranked G5 winner, and 2 at large berths.

The NY6 bowls can serve as the quarter and semi-final sites. Quarter finals are played on or around New Years Day. Semis are played mid-January. National title the Saturday night before the Super Bowl. The Semi-final sites will still hold a bowl on/near NYD pitting 4 of the best non-playoff teams, with geography/traditional tie ins. (i.e. If the Rose Bowl is a quarterfinal host site on New Years Day they'd host the top Big Ten and Pac 12 team not in the playoff)

Notre Dame would not like this change.

They always can go all in with the ACC, it's their call and no more special rules. As in the original CFP for independents getting 1.5% of the pool and all other independents, including BYU, Army and all the new ones, Liberty, UMass, New Mexico State etc, split 0.5%.

From what the other posters are saying, ND posters are no asking for special rules and would be fine with the 2 at-large bids.

Notre Dame has a lot more influence on what happens next than UMass, etc.

They will not end up in any pool with UMass, I bet.

(04-19-2019 07:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 01:16 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 12:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 10:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Also, ultimately, what will drive an expansion of the playoff system is that the P5 conferences will want a *guaranteed* spot for each of their champs. A 99% chance isn't good enough - it needs to be 100% ironclad access for those teams without any caveats. We can debate all day whether that's right or wrong, but the entire driving force behind any 8-team expansion will be 100% reserved spots for the P5 champs.

....

Regardless, just K.I.S.S. - 8-team playoffs with the 5 P5 champs, 1 G5 champ, and 2 at-larges using the traditional bowls as the quarterfinals.

Some points come to mind:

1) I don't think the A5 are as tied to the notion of having a guaranteed spot for their champion as you seem to be. History suggests that they aren't, because they have always had the power to create such a system, and yet in all these decades of college football they never have. That suggests to me that it really isn't a big deal.

In fact, the whole structure of the BCS and the CFP has been to *divorce* entitlement from merit. Both systems have explicitly rejected giving conference champs a decisive edge. And they could have been designed that way. E.g., the BCS could have had a rule saying that the teams ranked #1 and #2 must be conference champs, and likewise the CFP could have a rule that instructs the committee that to finish in the top 4, a team *must* be a conference champ. But nope.

2) Along these same lines, if representation in the playoffs is a big deal, I don't see why we couldn't have a system that guarantees a spot for the highest-ranked team from each A5 conference, regardless of whether it is their champion. To the extent that representation is an issue, I think an A5 conference is far more concerned with getting *a* team in the playoffs, much less concerned that it be their champion.

I mean, what if a 7-5 Pitt team going nowhere had upset 12-0 Clemson in the ACC title game last year? Do you really think the ACC would have rather had Pitt make the playoffs than Clemson? I don't.

3) I would say the impetus for the B1G or any other A5 to expand to an eight-team playoff would be if there is significantly more money in it. That seemed to be the obvious motivation with the expansion from the BCS to the CFP - ESPN agreed to pay a lot more money for it.

4) I think there is a contradiction in your notion of a 5 - 1 - 2 system. Namely, that the idea of the top G5 team getting in is contrary to A5 representation interests.

As I pointed out earlier, had we had an 8 - 1 - 2 system the past six years, the result would have been three more AAC teams in the playoffs, 1 more MAC team, and 1 more MWC team, but three fewer B1G teams, two fewer SEC teams, and Notre Dame would have missed as well, compared to if there had been a "straight 8" system.

I just don't see the A5, particular the twin powers of the B1G and SEC, agreeing to a system that sacrifices playoff spots for them in favor of spots for the AAC and the MWC.

So while what I really think would happen would be a "straight 8" system, at best, I see a 5-3 system, with the highest-ranked team from each A5 conference, plus three wild cards.

I agree that the P5 don't want to give up spots to the G5 leagues. To the extent that occurs, it will essentially be forced upon them (e.g. legally, getting the G5 to agree to the overall system, etc.).

I'd disagree about the importance of champions, though. I believe that the P5 leagues besides maybe the SEC care heavily about their specific champion getting into the playoff every year (and that's generally because their champ has had the *least* to worry about over the past decade). You can even see it in the comments from Barry Alvarez from the OP - he literally doesn't count the time where Ohio State made it into the CFP as a non-champ in the same season where Penn State was the Big Ten champ. The ACC wants that Pitt upset to still count because that's what allows it to sell the ACC Championship Game as a literal playoff game to the TV networks that the ACC gets to receive 100% of the revenue for all of itself (and the same thing with respect to the other power conferences). It's just like how ALL of the conferences (big and small) send their conference tournament winner as their auto-bid to the NCAA Tournament as opposed to their regular season champs. They *need* those stakes in those conference tournaments in order to maximize revenue and that would be probably 10 or 20-fold in the case of football (where an 8-team playoff with auto-bids turns each P5 conference championship game into its own playoff game that creates a huge amount of revenue that the conferences don't have to share with each other). You have to take into account the increased value of the P5 conference championship games if there are auto-bids as that's critical to determining the revenue involved.

Also, the fact that auto-bids haven't happened already or in the past doesn't really matter here because the playoff currently and previously (whether the BCS or CFP) has never been large enough to accommodate all of the champions from the power conferences. So, of course there can't be auto-bids in the current system because it mathematically isn't possible (and it certainly wasn't possible under the BCS system). Note that both the BCS and CFP systems still featured contract bowls where each of the power conferences received an unambiguous bid (and more importantly, guaranteed payment), so the power conferences are very much about those guarantees. So, the BCS and CFP championship games have been on top of those guaranteed contract auto-bids that the power conferences have. I think the calculus changes a *huge* amount in an 8-team playoff because (a) the field will become large enough to take in all 5 power conference champs without ambiguity and (b) the fact that the 8-team playoff will most likely effectively replace the contract bowl system (and the money that comes with it) in a way that the CFP and BCS haven't done.

Guarantees, guarantees, guarantees. I keep seeing "the P5 will get bids in an 8-team playoff 'most' of the time without auto-bids" and that's simply not good enough. Yes, a 7-5 Pitt team absolutely needs to go to the playoff if it wins the ACC Championship without caveats... and then the ACC gets even more money by getting Clemson in as an at-large bid. The difference between a 100% guarantee for that 7-5 ACC champ and a 99% chance is what exercising power is all about.

1) IMO, your legal point is another good reason for the A5 to adopt a "straight 8" model rather than one that guarantees spots for A5 champs, as giving the A5 champs each an autobid could make them legally vulnerable in an anti-trust sense. As long as it is straight 8, nobody has a formal advantage in terms of playoff participation. IMO, a 5-1-2 system doesn't obviate that, because it gives each A5 a guaranteed spot but doesn't do so for each G5.

2) I still don't see anything in your argument that negates the point that if having their champ in a playoff is so vital to the A5 conferences than why have they never created such a system in 120 years of football? They could have done so at any time, there was no law that said they had to progress from a 2-team playoff to a 4-team playoff, etc. This suggests to me that it isn't a big priority.

As for Alvarez, I think you are being generous to him. I think it's clear he just screwed up, misremembered, as he never mentions "conference champions" in his comments, which it would seem obvious he would do if that was what concerned him. But what seemed to concern him was the B1G missing the playoffs. In fairness to him, those two years seem like longer, because the B1G hasn't won a playoff game since 2014 when Ohio State won the inaugural CFP.

3) And, I do think it telling that the BCS and CFP haven't had provisions for conference champs. Even though mathematically it is impossible for all the A5 champs to be included in either the BCS or CFP (again, telling in itself that they would create systems that created that impossibility), it was still possible for the A5 to express their alleged profound concern for conference champs in those systems, as they could have put in place stronger rules that would ensure that the participants in the BCS and CFP would be conference champs even though not all could get in. But they didn't do that.

4) Money of course will be a critical driver here. Ultimately, whether we get an 8-team playoff of any sort will depend on what ESPN, FOX, CBS, etc. are willing to pay for it. On that note, regarding the 5-1-2 plan, I think it is instructive about who would have gotten in had such a plan existed the last six years: Compared to straight 8, 3 more AAC, 1 more MAC, and 1 more MWC teams get in, while 3 B1G, 2 SEC, and Notre Dame are left out.

I don't think the networks like that any more than the A5 would.

Ultimately, this is a "we shall see" situation, so ... we shall see what happens. But for the reasons given i think that if an 8-team playoff is adopted, a straight-8 system is most likely. It is legally the most bullet-proof, and it is consistent with past systems that valued merit over inclusivity.

Quo, you are seeing the picture but attributing the motives to the wrong sources. The conferences would have been fine with champs. It's the networks that are leary of it. By not insisting on champions of conferences it left the door open for better national TV draws. That's why only fans complained when Alabama and Ohio State got in without winning conference championships.

The last thing the networks wanted was a year in which Washington State wins the PAC, Iowa wins the Big 10, Ole Miss wins the SEC, Baylor wins the Big 12, and a lesser recognized North Carolina school wins the ACC.

The CFP has been dependent upon big brands and the emerging story at Clemson.

Florida State, Alabama, Ohio State, and Oklahoma would suit them just fine about every year. Clemson has been a good substitute for F.S.U. because they were a fresh face and Dabo was a good story. They would be very happy if U.S.C. got healthy.