Jesus, you guys and your wall of text.

(12-15-2019 09:31 AM)bullet Wrote:  Rank matters more than name brand. Baylor-Oklahoma is up there this year. You don't see much USC, Nebraska, FSU or Miami at the top of the TV rankings.

Now rank with name brand is what creates great ratings.

So while TR has a point about that 9th conference game perhaps slightly depressing average rankings, JR has a point in that schools get paid for better content. And more conference matchups creates more opportunities for those games with great ratings.

Yeah, I would be interested to see evidence that any teams are (national) ratings movers in a meaningful way after a few six or seven win seasons.

(12-15-2019 09:31 AM)bullet Wrote:  Rank matters more than name brand. Baylor-Oklahoma is up there this year. You don't see much USC, Nebraska, FSU or Miami at the top of the TV rankings.

Now rank with name brand is what creates great ratings.

So while TR has a point about that 9th conference game perhaps slightly depressing average rankings, JR has a point in that schools get paid for better content. And more conference matchups creates more opportunities for those games with great ratings.

The ability to draw numbers matters Bullet. Oklahoma is the brand that drew ratings for the Baylor game, not Baylor. Show me some Baylor games that weren't against Texas or Oklahoma that drew 8 million viewers nationally and I might reconsider. I suspect that Miami/FSU may have outdrawn those Baylor games not against UT & OU.

Miami-Florida State is a great example of a game that had two "brand" teams which drew extremely weak ratings.

(12-15-2019 10:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 09:31 AM)bullet Wrote:  Rank matters more than name brand. Baylor-Oklahoma is up there this year. You don't see much USC, Nebraska, FSU or Miami at the top of the TV rankings.

Now rank with name brand is what creates great ratings.

So while TR has a point about that 9th conference game perhaps slightly depressing average rankings, JR has a point in that schools get paid for better content. And more conference matchups creates more opportunities for those games with great ratings.

The ability to draw numbers matters Bullet. Oklahoma is the brand that drew ratings for the Baylor game, not Baylor. Show me some Baylor games that weren't against Texas or Oklahoma that drew 8 million viewers nationally and I might reconsider. I suspect that Miami/FSU may have outdrawn those Baylor games not against UT & OU.

Look at the last week of the season.
1. Ohio St.-Michigan 7.1 rating
2. Alabama-Auburn 6.3 rating
3. Oklahoma-Oklahoma St. 3.2 rating
4. Wisconsin-Minnesota 2.9 rating (two ranked no name brands)
5. Notre Dame-Stanford 2.0 rating (1 mega brand ranked-merely ok ratings)
6. Texas-Texas Tech 1.8
7. Washington St.-Washington 1.7
7. UVA-Virginia Tech 1.7
9. LSU-A&M 1.6 (slightly higher viewers than #6, but lower rating)-#1 and a name brand vs. an unranked solid brand and it has a lower rating than 2 unranked Washington schools in a game that means nothing.
10. Cincinnati-Memphis 1.5 (two ranked no name teams almost up with LSU-A&M and ahead of Georgia-Georgia Tech)
11. Colorado-Utah 1.4
11. Georgia-Georgia Tech 1.4
11. Missouri-Arkansas 1.4
14. USF-UCF 1.1
15. Clemson-South Carolina 1.0

(12-15-2019 11:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 10:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 09:31 AM)bullet Wrote:  Rank matters more than name brand. Baylor-Oklahoma is up there this year. You don't see much USC, Nebraska, FSU or Miami at the top of the TV rankings.

Now rank with name brand is what creates great ratings.

So while TR has a point about that 9th conference game perhaps slightly depressing average rankings, JR has a point in that schools get paid for better content. And more conference matchups creates more opportunities for those games with great ratings.

The ability to draw numbers matters Bullet. Oklahoma is the brand that drew ratings for the Baylor game, not Baylor. Show me some Baylor games that weren't against Texas or Oklahoma that drew 8 million viewers nationally and I might reconsider. I suspect that Miami/FSU may have outdrawn those Baylor games not against UT & OU.

Look at the last week of the season.
1. Ohio St.-Michigan 7.1 rating
2. Alabama-Auburn 6.3 rating
3. Oklahoma-Oklahoma St. 3.2 rating
4. Wisconsin-Minnesota 2.9 rating (two ranked no name brands)
5. Notre Dame-Stanford 2.0 rating (1 mega brand ranked-merely ok ratings)
6. Texas-Texas Tech 1.8
7. Washington St.-Washington 1.7
7. UVA-Virginia Tech 1.7
9. LSU-A&M 1.6 (slightly higher viewers than #6, but lower rating)-#1 and a name brand vs. an unranked solid brand and it has a lower rating than 2 unranked Washington schools in a game that means nothing.
10. Cincinnati-Memphis 1.5 (two ranked no name teams almost up with LSU-A&M and ahead of Georgia-Georgia Tech)
11. Colorado-Utah 1.4
11. Georgia-Georgia Tech 1.4
11. Missouri-Arkansas 1.4
14. USF-UCF 1.1
15. Clemson-South Carolina 1.0

Those are shares not millions of viewers and I don't see Baylor anywhere. I asked for what they did against anyone other than Oklahoma and Texas.

(12-15-2019 08:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 05:23 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 05:05 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  Like I always preach:

8 team playoff is pretty sound -- but it takes away the amount of teams (12) being able to play in Big $ Bowls. You're reducing that by 50%.
And yes, with an 8-team playoff, these are going to be the ONLY "Elite" games.

No it doesn’t, not if you do it correctly.

Have the first round at home sites the week after CCGs. That’s the only way you’re going to guarantee sellouts. Then have the big bowl selection show that next day on a Sunday, although a lot of them will be almost determined, it’s still “must see TV”.

They're more interested in TV$ than sellouts or fans. Your way is logical, but its not going to happen. That's not prime TV watching time with people shopping. Also, the bowls seem to have pictures of college execs. They have an irrational desire to preserve that system. Your way will diminish the bowls. Having the NYD bowls being quarterfinals will enhance the bowls.

Why do you think it would diminish the NYD bowls? It would be pretty much what we have now and wouldn’t extend the season.

(12-15-2019 11:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 11:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 10:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 09:31 AM)bullet Wrote:  Rank matters more than name brand. Baylor-Oklahoma is up there this year. You don't see much USC, Nebraska, FSU or Miami at the top of the TV rankings.

Now rank with name brand is what creates great ratings.

So while TR has a point about that 9th conference game perhaps slightly depressing average rankings, JR has a point in that schools get paid for better content. And more conference matchups creates more opportunities for those games with great ratings.

The ability to draw numbers matters Bullet. Oklahoma is the brand that drew ratings for the Baylor game, not Baylor. Show me some Baylor games that weren't against Texas or Oklahoma that drew 8 million viewers nationally and I might reconsider. I suspect that Miami/FSU may have outdrawn those Baylor games not against UT & OU.

Look at the last week of the season.
1. Ohio St.-Michigan 7.1 rating
2. Alabama-Auburn 6.3 rating
3. Oklahoma-Oklahoma St. 3.2 rating
4. Wisconsin-Minnesota 2.9 rating (two ranked no name brands)
5. Notre Dame-Stanford 2.0 rating (1 mega brand ranked-merely ok ratings)
6. Texas-Texas Tech 1.8
7. Washington St.-Washington 1.7
7. UVA-Virginia Tech 1.7
9. LSU-A&M 1.6 (slightly higher viewers than #6, but lower rating)-#1 and a name brand vs. an unranked solid brand and it has a lower rating than 2 unranked Washington schools in a game that means nothing.
10. Cincinnati-Memphis 1.5 (two ranked no name teams almost up with LSU-A&M and ahead of Georgia-Georgia Tech)
11. Colorado-Utah 1.4
11. Georgia-Georgia Tech 1.4
11. Missouri-Arkansas 1.4
14. USF-UCF 1.1
15. Clemson-South Carolina 1.0

Those are shares not millions of viewers and I don't see Baylor anywhere. I asked for what they did against anyone other than Oklahoma and Texas.

They didn't play anyone ranked other than Oklahoma.

I showed you a similar situation with Wisconsin-Minnesota beating a bunch of name brand schools.

Baylor played one of the weakest P5 schools that week, Kansas. Didn't have good ratings, but beat Miami vs. Duke.

Wisconsin-Minnesota was for 1st place in the B1G West, and to the CCG. Also both ar very large schools with large regional followings. They fall in the Tennessee category, especially Wisconsin. It was also during rivalry week, when more TV sets are on.

(12-15-2019 09:31 AM)bullet Wrote:  Rank matters more than name brand. Baylor-Oklahoma is up there this year. You don't see much USC, Nebraska, FSU or Miami at the top of the TV rankings.

Now rank with name brand is what creates great ratings.

So while TR has a point about that 9th conference game perhaps slightly depressing average rankings, JR has a point in that schools get paid for better content. And more conference matchups creates more opportunities for those games with great ratings.

here is what he fails to understand

1. I did not bring up the Big 12 in anything I said....he brought up the Big 12 because he knew what I was saying was correct and he wanted to try and deflect from being wrong

2. it is laughable that anyone that would talk about pawl finebomb would accuse anyone else of being a homer about anything

3. it is very simple he has no grasp of how the CBS contract with the SEC SEC SEC works nor other contracts with ESPN and the SEC SEC SEC

A. the CBS contract is for one game of the week and the CCG and that contract allows the owner to choose the one they consider to be the top game of the week

when aggy and MU were added to the SEC SEC SEC the SEC SEC SEC got ZERO dollars and ZERO cents from CBS for those new teams

and those new teams DID bring additional games to the SEC SEC SEC to sell to their media partners....but those games were not available to CBS as ADDITIONAL GAMES JUST ADDITIONAL CHOICES OF GAMES......and in spite of what known idiot clay travis said those additional games brought ZERO value to the CBS portion of the SEC SEC SEC contracts

why is that.....well it is because as Neil Pilson former head of CBS sports explained.......aggy and MU are not the level of program that brings the type of viewership to CBS that CURRENT SEC SEC SEC match ups do not already bring thus there is no new incentive for CBS because they are still choosing ONE game of the week and even if any or all of those games were to have aggy or MU in them they would still have similar ratings to other SEC SEC SEC match ups that CBS already had available to them

it was not like CBS had the CUSA game of the week and suddenly with aggy and MU in the CUSA they now have games to choose from that might have 2X, 3X or 5X the viewership

it is simply that the SEC SEC SEC added two teams and now because the CBS contract is for ONE GAME each week and the CCG CBS is presented with more choices of games that will have about the SAME RATINGS thus there is not additional value to their portion of the contract

B. this SAME concept applies to the CBS contract if the SEC SEC SEC decides to play more conference games

the SEC SEC SEC is not creating MORE CONTENT they are simply creating some match ups that might or might not be chosen by the holder of those rights, but those games are not going to present any more opportunity to get additional ratings for that ONE GAME OF THE WEEK than what is already presented to CBS now

just like was explained above in point A where adding aggy and MU simply meant more choices that might or might not have about the same ratings as already available content

when a contract calls for a choice of ONE GAME a week and the owner of that contract is choosing what they feel is the BEST game from a number of games that will probably be highly rated when you give them a choice of another game that MIGHT be similarly rated that really does not present a major new value to them because they still have a choice of ONE

it is like giving someone a choice of one prize out of 20 prizes at a carnival and 8 or 10 of those prizes have a high value and another 8 or 10 have a little lower value and a couple have a much lower value and you charge them $5 dollars to choose a prize

then you decide that you will give them a choice of 30 prizes and about 9 to 11 of them have a high value and about 9 to 11 have a little lower value and a few have a very low value and now you want to charge $12 for a ticket

well if you have a bunch of people that listen to paaaaaaawwwwwwllllll and that read travis clay they immediately think that is a massively larger value because they can now choose ONE PRIZE out of 30 instead of one prize out of 20 when all the prizes still have similar values as before

you still get ONE PRIZE for your money and the values of the prizes are still in the same range.....so having a few more choices of prizes with the same value while paying over double for the chance to pick one only makes sense to people that want to believe that more choices is worth more even though you are getting the same value when you make that ONE CHOICE

clearly CBS understands this.....clearly people that listen to paaaaawwwwlll and read travis clay get caught up in the notion of choices and paying for choices instead of paying for the value received from that choice

4. and more importantly I am pretty sure that one person on here still does not understand the concept that playing more conference games could actually result in FEWER overall games available for broadcast by the SEC SEC SEC media partners and in fact I believe they still think that more conference games would actually increase the total number of available games to SEC SEC SEC media partners

I think the VERY simple maths of why that is escapes them and that is why they had to all of the sudden bring up the Big 12 and try and use a big word like schadenfreude because they know that big words like that impress pppppaaaawwwwlllll listeners and travis clay readers

and it deflects them from understanding that having more prizes of the same value to choose from really does not increase value to a buyer that gets ONE of those prizes for their money and it deflects them from understanding that more conference games does not create more total content for anyone to bid on especially the holder of a contract that calls for ONE GAME a week and a CCG

and in fact it could DECREASE the total available content for the holder of the remaining content because a reduction in the ability to buy in games without a return game could reduce the total number of games available to that rights holder

this has nothing to do with the Big 12 it has to do with simple maths, simple logic, simple reasoning, and PROVEN facts as presented by the behavior of CBS when aggy and MU were added to the SEC SEC SEC and the comments by Neil Pilson former head of CBS sports when he explained why travis clay was an idiot and adding new teams to the SEC SEC SEC brought no new additional value to the CBS portion of the SEC SEC SEC contract

so what I am saying has already been PROVEN in the market place by CBS and explained by the former head of CBS sports

in relation to the CBS portion of the contract adding more conference games represents about the same value as adding new teams to the conference with similar ratings to current SEC SEC SEC members....and that was NO NEW VALUE just new choices of about the same potential value

(12-15-2019 02:17 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 09:31 AM)bullet Wrote:  Rank matters more than name brand. Baylor-Oklahoma is up there this year. You don't see much USC, Nebraska, FSU or Miami at the top of the TV rankings.

Now rank with name brand is what creates great ratings.

So while TR has a point about that 9th conference game perhaps slightly depressing average rankings, JR has a point in that schools get paid for better content. And more conference matchups creates more opportunities for those games with great ratings.

here is what he fails to understand

1. I did not bring up the Big 12 in anything I said....he brought up the Big 12 because he knew what I was saying was correct and he wanted to try and deflect from being wrong

2. it is laughable that anyone that would talk about pawl finebomb would accuse anyone else of being a homer about anything

3. it is very simple he has no grasp of how the CBS contract with the SEC SEC SEC works nor other contracts with ESPN and the SEC SEC SEC

A. the CBS contract is for one game of the week and the CCG and that contract allows the owner to choose the one they consider to be the top game of the week

when aggy and MU were added to the SEC SEC SEC the SEC SEC SEC got ZERO dollars and ZERO cents from CBS for those new teams

and those new teams DID bring additional games to the SEC SEC SEC to sell to their media partners....but those games were not available to CBS as ADDITIONAL GAMES JUST ADDITIONAL CHOICES OF GAMES......and in spite of what known idiot clay travis said those additional games brought ZERO value to the CBS portion of the SEC SEC SEC contracts

why is that.....well it is because as Neil Pilson former head of CBS sports explained.......aggy and MU are not the level of program that brings the type of viewership to CBS that CURRENT SEC SEC SEC match ups do not already bring thus there is no new incentive for CBS because they are still choosing ONE game of the week and even if any or all of those games were to have aggy or MU in them they would still have similar ratings to other SEC SEC SEC match ups that CBS already had available to them

it was not like CBS had the CUSA game of the week and suddenly with aggy and MU in the CUSA they now have games to choose from that might have 2X, 3X or 5X the viewership

it is simply that the SEC SEC SEC added two teams and now because the CBS contract is for ONE GAME each week and the CCG CBS is presented with more choices of games that will have about the SAME RATINGS thus there is not additional value to their portion of the contract

B. this SAME concept applies to the CBS contract if the SEC SEC SEC decides to play more conference games

the SEC SEC SEC is not creating MORE CONTENT they are simply creating some match ups that might or might not be chosen by the holder of those rights, but those games are not going to present any more opportunity to get additional ratings for that ONE GAME OF THE WEEK than what is already presented to CBS now

just like was explained above in point A where adding aggy and MU simply meant more choices that might or might not have about the same ratings as already available content

when a contract calls for a choice of ONE GAME a week and the owner of that contract is choosing what they feel is the BEST game from a number of games that will probably be highly rated when you give them a choice of another game that MIGHT be similarly rated that really does not present a major new value to them because they still have a choice of ONE

it is like giving someone a choice of one prize out of 20 prizes at a carnival and 8 or 10 of those prizes have a high value and another 8 or 10 have a little lower value and a couple have a much lower value and you charge them $5 dollars to choose a prize

then you decide that you will give them a choice of 30 prizes and about 9 to 11 of them have a high value and about 9 to 11 have a little lower value and a few have a very low value and now you want to charge $12 for a ticket

well if you have a bunch of people that listen to paaaaaaawwwwwwllllll and that read travis clay they immediately think that is a massively larger value because they can now choose ONE PRIZE out of 30 instead of one prize out of 20 when all the prizes still have similar values as before

you still get ONE PRIZE for your money and the values of the prizes are still in the same range.....so having a few more choices of prizes with the same value while paying over double for the chance to pick one only makes sense to people that want to believe that more choices is worth more even though you are getting the same value when you make that ONE CHOICE

clearly CBS understands this.....clearly people that listen to paaaaawwwwlll and read travis clay get caught up in the notion of choices and paying for choices instead of paying for the value received from that choice

4. and more importantly I am pretty sure that one person on here still does not understand the concept that playing more conference games could actually result in FEWER overall games available for broadcast by the SEC SEC SEC media partners and in fact I believe they still think that more conference games would actually increase the total number of available games to SEC SEC SEC media partners

I think the VERY simple maths of why that is escapes them and that is why they had to all of the sudden bring up the Big 12 and try and use a big word like schadenfreude because they know that big words like that impress pppppaaaawwwwlllll listeners and travis clay readers

and it deflects them from understanding that having more prizes of the same value to choose from really does not increase value to a buyer that gets ONE of those prizes for their money and it deflects them from understanding that more conference games does not create more total content for anyone to bid on especially the holder of a contract that calls for ONE GAME a week and a CCG

and in fact it could DECREASE the total available content for the holder of the remaining content because a reduction in the ability to buy in games without a return game could reduce the total number of games available to that rights holder

this has nothing to do with the Big 12 it has to do with simple maths, simple logic, simple reasoning, and PROVEN facts as presented by the behavior of CBS when aggy and MU were added to the SEC SEC SEC and the comments by Neil Pilson former head of CBS sports when he explained why travis clay was an idiot and adding new teams to the SEC SEC SEC brought no new additional value to the CBS portion of the SEC SEC SEC contract

so what I am saying has already been PROVEN in the market place by CBS and explained by the former head of CBS sports

in relation to the CBS portion of the contract adding more conference games represents about the same value as adding new teams to the conference with similar ratings to current SEC SEC SEC members....and that was NO NEW VALUE just new choices of about the same potential value

15 years ago CBS explained it. 15 years ago it was proven in the market place. CBS wants to get a deal done early and the sum kicked around by reporters who follow such is 250 to 275 million. The SEC may opt for another offer and will probably hold out for more. CBS wants to buy two additional games in inventory this time and wants to keep the CCG which is a separate bid.

I know a lot more about what's gong on now than you do. You seem to think the contract is still worth the 55 million from a decade and a half ago. When A&M and Mizzou were added there was no CBS increase because they weren't asking for more inventory. But the T2 and T3 value of the SEC was renegotiated for a sizeable raise. Refusal to grasp that makes you either obtuse or a troll and my money is on the latter. And FWIW Finebaum said two days ago that Sankey had indicated that the next Media contract renewal for the SEC would be the largest signed to date by a P conference and the SEC really doesn't float teasers like that unless they are getting ready to jazz the fan base.

(12-15-2019 10:01 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 09:31 AM)bullet Wrote:  Rank matters more than name brand. Baylor-Oklahoma is up there this year. You don't see much USC, Nebraska, FSU or Miami at the top of the TV rankings.

Now rank with name brand is what creates great ratings.

So while TR has a point about that 9th conference game perhaps slightly depressing average rankings, JR has a point in that schools get paid for better content. And more conference matchups creates more opportunities for those games with great ratings.

Yeah, I would be interested to see evidence that any teams are (national) ratings movers in a meaningful way after a few six or seven win seasons.

Both things matter. 8-0 Baylor vs 7-1 Oklahoma State draws better than 4-4 Texas vs 5-3 Oklahoma. But 4-4 Texas vs 5-3 Oklahoma draws a lot better than 5-3 Baylor vs 4-4 Oklahoma State; and 8-0 Oklahoma vs 7-1 Texas draws better than 8-0 Baylor vs 7-1 OSU.

(12-15-2019 11:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 11:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 10:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 09:31 AM)bullet Wrote:  Rank matters more than name brand. Baylor-Oklahoma is up there this year. You don't see much USC, Nebraska, FSU or Miami at the top of the TV rankings.

Now rank with name brand is what creates great ratings.

So while TR has a point about that 9th conference game perhaps slightly depressing average rankings, JR has a point in that schools get paid for better content. And more conference matchups creates more opportunities for those games with great ratings.

The ability to draw numbers matters Bullet. Oklahoma is the brand that drew ratings for the Baylor game, not Baylor. Show me some Baylor games that weren't against Texas or Oklahoma that drew 8 million viewers nationally and I might reconsider. I suspect that Miami/FSU may have outdrawn those Baylor games not against UT & OU.

Look at the last week of the season.
1. Ohio St.-Michigan 7.1 rating
2. Alabama-Auburn 6.3 rating
3. Oklahoma-Oklahoma St. 3.2 rating
4. Wisconsin-Minnesota 2.9 rating (two ranked no name brands)
5. Notre Dame-Stanford 2.0 rating (1 mega brand ranked-merely ok ratings)
6. Texas-Texas Tech 1.8
7. Washington St.-Washington 1.7
7. UVA-Virginia Tech 1.7
9. LSU-A&M 1.6 (slightly higher viewers than #6, but lower rating)-#1 and a name brand vs. an unranked solid brand and it has a lower rating than 2 unranked Washington schools in a game that means nothing.
10. Cincinnati-Memphis 1.5 (two ranked no name teams almost up with LSU-A&M and ahead of Georgia-Georgia Tech)
11. Colorado-Utah 1.4
11. Georgia-Georgia Tech 1.4
11. Missouri-Arkansas 1.4
14. USF-UCF 1.1
15. Clemson-South Carolina 1.0

Those are shares not millions of viewers and I don't see Baylor anywhere. I asked for what they did against anyone other than Oklahoma and Texas.

#9 TCU vs #5 Baylor received a 2.7 rating in 2014. However it went head to head against #3 MSU vs #2 Auburn (3.8 rtg) and an undefeated #6 Notre Dame game (2.3).

Earlier in the day #11 OU played a 2-3 Texas squad and received a 3.3 rating

(12-15-2019 12:39 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Wisconsin-Minnesota was for 1st place in the B1G West, and to the CCG. Also both ar very large schools with large regional followings. They fall in the Tennessee category, especially Wisconsin. It was also during rivalry week, when more TV sets are on.

Minnesota isn't even in the Baylor category. They haven't won even a share of a conference title since 1967. Wisconsin is not Tennessee level (although Tennessee is trying to work their way down). They have never had an MNC. Minnesota's last was nearly 60 years ago.

(12-15-2019 03:54 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 10:01 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 09:31 AM)bullet Wrote:  Rank matters more than name brand. Baylor-Oklahoma is up there this year. You don't see much USC, Nebraska, FSU or Miami at the top of the TV rankings.

Now rank with name brand is what creates great ratings.

So while TR has a point about that 9th conference game perhaps slightly depressing average rankings, JR has a point in that schools get paid for better content. And more conference matchups creates more opportunities for those games with great ratings.

Yeah, I would be interested to see evidence that any teams are (national) ratings movers in a meaningful way after a few six or seven win seasons.

Both things matter. 8-0 Baylor vs 7-1 Oklahoma State draws better than 4-4 Texas vs 5-3 Oklahoma. But 4-4 Texas vs 5-3 Oklahoma draws a lot better than 5-3 Baylor vs 4-4 Oklahoma State; and 8-0 Oklahoma vs 7-1 Texas draws better than 8-0 Baylor vs 7-1 OSU.

Sure. But that's different than saying that the national television audience much cares about Texas or Florida State when those teams aren't good. They don't.[/i]

Delaney is only making these suggestions because he’s retiring. Unfortunately went it matters The Big Ten won’t support playoff expansion.

(12-17-2019 04:59 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Delaney is only making these suggestions because he’s retiring. Unfortunately went it matters The Big Ten won’t support playoff expansion.

Playoff football is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future.
And yes, the B1G will support playoff expansion, because they don't want to be left out....ever.
Being able to guarantee inclusion in the playoffs would be a strong motivation for any conference (especially one not named SEC) and if you could couple it with the guarantee of a B1G v. PAC matchup in the Rose Bowl that's meaningful, you could gain the B1G's cooperation.

I still believe that moving from a P5 to a P6 (same teams, just divided differently) would provide a better opportunity for a better playoff structure with 6 champions and two wild cards.
6 Conferences with from between 10-12 teams would best segment the country in regions to re-localize football and mend most broken rivalries.

This is only a template of how the six could be divided, it is by no means a completed product;

PAC stays the same minus Colorado
Big 12: Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, OSU, Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU
B1G: original Big Ten , Missouri
SEC: Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, MSU, ALabama, Auburn, Tenn., Vandy, Georgia, Florida
ACC: UVa, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Wake Forest, NCSU, Clemson, South Carolina, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
EAST: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Louisville, Notre Dame

Keeping conferences at 11 would allow for a full round robin (ten conferences games).
For the EAST with ten teams (9 conference games).

(12-17-2019 06:14 AM)XLance Wrote:  I still believe that moving from a P5 to a P6 (same teams, just divided differently) would provide a better opportunity for a better playoff structure with 6 champions and two wild cards.
6 Conferences with from between 10-12 teams would best segment the country in regions to re-localize football and mend most broken rivalries.

This is only a template of how the six could be divided, it is by no means a completed product;

PAC stays the same minus Colorado
Big 12: Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, OSU, Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU
B1G: original Big Ten , Missouri
SEC: Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, MSU, ALabama, Auburn, Tenn., Vandy, Georgia, Florida
ACC: UVa, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Wake Forest, NCSU, Clemson, South Carolina, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
EAST: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Louisville, Notre Dame

Keeping conferences at 11 would allow for a full round robin (ten conferences games).
For the EAST with ten teams (9 conference games).

11 doesn't work. Odd numbers make for bad scheduling, especially for basketball and baseball. And they really don't want 10 conference games. Needs to be 10 or 12 teams. BYU, Houston, Cincinnati and 1 to 3 others need to get added (UConn, USF, UCF, Colorado St., UNLV, San Diego St.-depending on where they need the extra teams-most likely need them east of the Rockies).

At this point, we need one or the other: 16 team conferences or a 5-1-2 playoff.

You strip a P5 of its best assets on the road to some 16 team conferences and then you have a P4 and a champions only playoff.