Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
CFP Expansion
Author Message
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 24,375
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 790
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #21
RE: CFP Expansion
My instinct is presidents aren’t going to be enthusiastic about expansion.

Beyond the bowl relationship you have issues to contend with.

I would think you can’t get beyond 8 without going back to an 11 game schedule or 11/12 depending on calendar like FCS.

Blocking expansion is best leverage for auto bids. Why any P5 ever left out agree to a scheme that doesn’t guarantee you a slot.

There is generally an assumption that 16 means 10 auto bids. Sure that means six at-large which beats the three or two auto bids 8 would provide. But it’s an easy cop out to apply the NCAA Division I autobid principle which is half or less of the field. At 16 with 8 auto bids you are leaving out the two weakest leagues based on most likely last three years of data and can alway have a hook (be ranked x as a non-autobid champion or be ranked above y number of autobid teams to get a guaranteed at-large).

Looks more inclusive.

In a normal year assuming all CFP title game participants played a conference title game you have two play 15, around 8 play 14, around 70 play 13 and 50 play 12.

Now if you go back to 11 and assuming league champs advance the furthest you have 2 play 16, 2 play 15, 4 play 14, 2 play 13, with say 25 bowls you get 56 playing 12 and 74 play 11. Overall fewer games. Played and a reduction in injuries and lost class time.
04-24-2021 03:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,173
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1271
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #22
RE: CFP Expansion
(04-23-2021 08:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(04-23-2021 08:18 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  Definitely interesting news but I just can't see any playoff format that gives Boise State (for ex) a better chance of making it than Purdue, Penn State, Florida State, etc being accepted.

Right. That’s why 16 is the best. You get the 10 conference champs maximizing conference CG’s and 6 at-large bids, which gives each P5 conference essentially two bids or more.

I'm not really sure that solves the issue he raised. Under your system, Boise would have made the playoffs four times the past seven seasons. I do not think FSU and Penn State have finished in the top 11 (which would be needed for a P5 to make the playoffs, assuming the champ is in the top 11) four times in the past seven years, much less Purdue.

With autobids, you are going to have G5 leaders who make the playoffs more frequently than all but the tippy-top P5.

I just looked up Penn State, one of the very most successful P5 teams of the past several years, with three trips to NY6 bowls. They would have made a 16-team playoff three times during the CFP time. Fewer than Boise, who hasn't been anywhere nearly as good.
(This post was last modified: 04-24-2021 07:24 AM by quo vadis.)
04-24-2021 07:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 7,655
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 289
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #23
RE: CFP Expansion
(04-24-2021 07:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-23-2021 08:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(04-23-2021 08:18 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  Definitely interesting news but I just can't see any playoff format that gives Boise State (for ex) a better chance of making it than Purdue, Penn State, Florida State, etc being accepted.

Right. That’s why 16 is the best. You get the 10 conference champs maximizing conference CG’s and 6 at-large bids, which gives each P5 conference essentially two bids or more.

I'm not really sure that solves the issue he raised. Under your system, Boise would have made the playoffs four times the past seven seasons. I do not think FSU and Penn State have finished in the top 11 (which would be needed for a P5 to make the playoffs, assuming the champ is in the top 11) four times in the past seven years, much less Purdue.

With autobids, you are going to have G5 leaders who make the playoffs more frequently than all but the tippy-top P5.

I just looked up Penn State, one of the very most successful P5 teams of the past several years, with three trips to NY6 bowls. They would have made a 16-team playoff three times during the CFP time. Fewer than Boise, who hasn't been anywhere nearly as good.

What would that be, 3/7?

Then a program must decide: what’s more important the Big Ten contract or making the playoffs? Penn State is a program that could go Independent and secure their own TV deal while playing a softer schedule made up of eastern teams. I’m sure ESPN would love to have Penn State and Nebraska under their umbrella as Independents.

In some ways I see an expanded playoff being the recipe to destroy the super-conference concept.

The other option is straight 16, which I’m sure you’d get behind. I initially made that model to work from and Louisiana and BYU (and Carolina 04-wine ) made it in, so there are still chances for non-P5 teams. Penn State didn’t really produce a profound case to be included this past season!
04-24-2021 09:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,173
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1271
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #24
RE: CFP Expansion
(04-24-2021 09:05 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(04-24-2021 07:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-23-2021 08:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(04-23-2021 08:18 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  Definitely interesting news but I just can't see any playoff format that gives Boise State (for ex) a better chance of making it than Purdue, Penn State, Florida State, etc being accepted.

Right. That’s why 16 is the best. You get the 10 conference champs maximizing conference CG’s and 6 at-large bids, which gives each P5 conference essentially two bids or more.

I'm not really sure that solves the issue he raised. Under your system, Boise would have made the playoffs four times the past seven seasons. I do not think FSU and Penn State have finished in the top 11 (which would be needed for a P5 to make the playoffs, assuming the champ is in the top 11) four times in the past seven years, much less Purdue.

With autobids, you are going to have G5 leaders who make the playoffs more frequently than all but the tippy-top P5.

I just looked up Penn State, one of the very most successful P5 teams of the past several years, with three trips to NY6 bowls. They would have made a 16-team playoff three times during the CFP time. Fewer than Boise, who hasn't been anywhere nearly as good.

What would that be, 3/7?

Then a program must decide: what’s more important the Big Ten contract or making the playoffs? Penn State is a program that could go Independent and secure their own TV deal while playing a softer schedule made up of eastern teams. I’m sure ESPN would love to have Penn State and Nebraska under their umbrella as Independents.

In some ways I see an expanded playoff being the recipe to destroy the super-conference concept.

The other option is straight 16, which I’m sure you’d get behind. I initially made that model to work from and Louisiana and BYU (and Carolina 04-wine ) made it in, so there are still chances for non-P5 teams. Penn State didn’t really produce a profound case to be included this past season!

About the bolded part - why on earth would the B1G and SEC and the ACC and Big 12 put themselves in the position of having to make that choice? Why would these conferences, who control college athletics, endorse a system that puts them in this bind? I don't see it.

As for straight 16, IMO 16 is just too many, I like straight 8. But yes, if we have to go to 16, then straight 16.
04-24-2021 10:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 24,375
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 790
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #25
RE: CFP Expansion
(04-24-2021 10:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-24-2021 09:05 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(04-24-2021 07:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-23-2021 08:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(04-23-2021 08:18 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  Definitely interesting news but I just can't see any playoff format that gives Boise State (for ex) a better chance of making it than Purdue, Penn State, Florida State, etc being accepted.

Right. That’s why 16 is the best. You get the 10 conference champs maximizing conference CG’s and 6 at-large bids, which gives each P5 conference essentially two bids or more.

I'm not really sure that solves the issue he raised. Under your system, Boise would have made the playoffs four times the past seven seasons. I do not think FSU and Penn State have finished in the top 11 (which would be needed for a P5 to make the playoffs, assuming the champ is in the top 11) four times in the past seven years, much less Purdue.

With autobids, you are going to have G5 leaders who make the playoffs more frequently than all but the tippy-top P5.

I just looked up Penn State, one of the very most successful P5 teams of the past several years, with three trips to NY6 bowls. They would have made a 16-team playoff three times during the CFP time. Fewer than Boise, who hasn't been anywhere nearly as good.

What would that be, 3/7?

Then a program must decide: what’s more important the Big Ten contract or making the playoffs? Penn State is a program that could go Independent and secure their own TV deal while playing a softer schedule made up of eastern teams. I’m sure ESPN would love to have Penn State and Nebraska under their umbrella as Independents.

In some ways I see an expanded playoff being the recipe to destroy the super-conference concept.

The other option is straight 16, which I’m sure you’d get behind. I initially made that model to work from and Louisiana and BYU (and Carolina 04-wine ) made it in, so there are still chances for non-P5 teams. Penn State didn’t really produce a profound case to be included this past season!

About the bolded part - why on earth would the B1G and SEC and the ACC and Big 12 put themselves in the position of having to make that choice? Why would these conferences, who control college athletics, endorse a system that puts them in this bind? I don't see it.

As for straight 16, IMO 16 is just too many, I like straight 8. But yes, if we have to go to 16, then straight 16.

16 would be the smallest field among the four football playing divisions
04-24-2021 11:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,595
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1900
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #26
RE: CFP Expansion
(04-24-2021 11:16 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-24-2021 10:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-24-2021 09:05 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(04-24-2021 07:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-23-2021 08:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  Right. That’s why 16 is the best. You get the 10 conference champs maximizing conference CG’s and 6 at-large bids, which gives each P5 conference essentially two bids or more.

I'm not really sure that solves the issue he raised. Under your system, Boise would have made the playoffs four times the past seven seasons. I do not think FSU and Penn State have finished in the top 11 (which would be needed for a P5 to make the playoffs, assuming the champ is in the top 11) four times in the past seven years, much less Purdue.

With autobids, you are going to have G5 leaders who make the playoffs more frequently than all but the tippy-top P5.

I just looked up Penn State, one of the very most successful P5 teams of the past several years, with three trips to NY6 bowls. They would have made a 16-team playoff three times during the CFP time. Fewer than Boise, who hasn't been anywhere nearly as good.

What would that be, 3/7?

Then a program must decide: what’s more important the Big Ten contract or making the playoffs? Penn State is a program that could go Independent and secure their own TV deal while playing a softer schedule made up of eastern teams. I’m sure ESPN would love to have Penn State and Nebraska under their umbrella as Independents.

In some ways I see an expanded playoff being the recipe to destroy the super-conference concept.

The other option is straight 16, which I’m sure you’d get behind. I initially made that model to work from and Louisiana and BYU (and Carolina 04-wine ) made it in, so there are still chances for non-P5 teams. Penn State didn’t really produce a profound case to be included this past season!

About the bolded part - why on earth would the B1G and SEC and the ACC and Big 12 put themselves in the position of having to make that choice? Why would these conferences, who control college athletics, endorse a system that puts them in this bind? I don't see it.

As for straight 16, IMO 16 is just too many, I like straight 8. But yes, if we have to go to 16, then straight 16.

16 would be the smallest field among the four football playing divisions

Yes---but none of them play 12 game regular seasons. When all is said and done---the exact same limiting logistics issues that were present when the CFP decided to just have a 4 game playoff are still steadfastly in place. The only difference is virtually every school has had a massive Covid hole blasted in its budget (and they all could be looking at yet another Covid budget hole next year as stadium capacity restrictions of some sort may extend into the 2021-2022 season). In my opinion---the financial pressure is the real difference this time around--and it will be more than enough to drive the CFP to an 8 team playoff. That said---expansion to 8 is about the most we can hope for....lol---its college football----change is almost always incremental for this bunch.
(This post was last modified: 04-24-2021 11:51 AM by Attackcoog.)
04-24-2021 11:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
balanced_view Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,586
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 60
I Root For: Louisiana
Location:
Post: #27
RE: CFP Expansion
(04-24-2021 01:43 AM)esayem Wrote:  This is how a 16 team playoff with auto-bids would have looked. Straight top 16 in the polls after the CCG's is pretty interesting as well. BYU ends up at 13 and Louisiana at 16.

1- Alabama*
16- UAB*

8- Oklahoma*
9- Coastal Carolina*

5- Texas A&M
12- Iowa State

4- Notre Dame
13- San Jose State*


3- Ohio State*
14- USC*

6- Cincinnati*
11- Georgia

7- Indiana
10- Florida

2- Clemson*
15- Ball State*

* auto-bid

I think this 16 field format is the perfect setup, however, I also feel its too fair for the P5 to agree with. I would guess they would be more open to say a 14 team field that looks like the NFL bracket. 5 P5 champs, 3 top G5 champs, and next top 8 at-large in the polls. Top 2 overall seeds gets byes.
(This post was last modified: 04-24-2021 11:47 AM by balanced_view.)
04-24-2021 11:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 7,655
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 289
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #28
RE: CFP Expansion
(04-24-2021 10:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-24-2021 09:05 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(04-24-2021 07:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-23-2021 08:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(04-23-2021 08:18 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  Definitely interesting news but I just can't see any playoff format that gives Boise State (for ex) a better chance of making it than Purdue, Penn State, Florida State, etc being accepted.

Right. That’s why 16 is the best. You get the 10 conference champs maximizing conference CG’s and 6 at-large bids, which gives each P5 conference essentially two bids or more.

I'm not really sure that solves the issue he raised. Under your system, Boise would have made the playoffs four times the past seven seasons. I do not think FSU and Penn State have finished in the top 11 (which would be needed for a P5 to make the playoffs, assuming the champ is in the top 11) four times in the past seven years, much less Purdue.

With autobids, you are going to have G5 leaders who make the playoffs more frequently than all but the tippy-top P5.

I just looked up Penn State, one of the very most successful P5 teams of the past several years, with three trips to NY6 bowls. They would have made a 16-team playoff three times during the CFP time. Fewer than Boise, who hasn't been anywhere nearly as good.

What would that be, 3/7?

Then a program must decide: what’s more important the Big Ten contract or making the playoffs? Penn State is a program that could go Independent and secure their own TV deal while playing a softer schedule made up of eastern teams. I’m sure ESPN would love to have Penn State and Nebraska under their umbrella as Independents.

In some ways I see an expanded playoff being the recipe to destroy the super-conference concept.

The other option is straight 16, which I’m sure you’d get behind. I initially made that model to work from and Louisiana and BYU (and Carolina 04-wine ) made it in, so there are still chances for non-P5 teams. Penn State didn’t really produce a profound case to be included this past season!

About the bolded part - why on earth would the B1G and SEC and the ACC and Big 12 put themselves in the position of having to make that choice? Why would these conferences, who control college athletics, endorse a system that puts them in this bind? I don't see it.

As for straight 16, IMO 16 is just too many, I like straight 8. But yes, if we have to go to 16, then straight 16.

I am looking at it like there would be 6 at-large bids available after auto-bids, which is a greater opportunity than Penn State has now. Penn State could do the very same thing I just said to have an easier path at the playoff right now if that was their priority.
04-24-2021 11:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 27,010
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 3150
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #29
RE: CFP Expansion
(04-24-2021 10:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-24-2021 09:05 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(04-24-2021 07:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-23-2021 08:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(04-23-2021 08:18 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  Definitely interesting news but I just can't see any playoff format that gives Boise State (for ex) a better chance of making it than Purdue, Penn State, Florida State, etc being accepted.

Right. That’s why 16 is the best. You get the 10 conference champs maximizing conference CG’s and 6 at-large bids, which gives each P5 conference essentially two bids or more.

I'm not really sure that solves the issue he raised. Under your system, Boise would have made the playoffs four times the past seven seasons. I do not think FSU and Penn State have finished in the top 11 (which would be needed for a P5 to make the playoffs, assuming the champ is in the top 11) four times in the past seven years, much less Purdue.

With autobids, you are going to have G5 leaders who make the playoffs more frequently than all but the tippy-top P5.

I just looked up Penn State, one of the very most successful P5 teams of the past several years, with three trips to NY6 bowls. They would have made a 16-team playoff three times during the CFP time. Fewer than Boise, who hasn't been anywhere nearly as good.

What would that be, 3/7?

Then a program must decide: what’s more important the Big Ten contract or making the playoffs? Penn State is a program that could go Independent and secure their own TV deal while playing a softer schedule made up of eastern teams. I’m sure ESPN would love to have Penn State and Nebraska under their umbrella as Independents.

In some ways I see an expanded playoff being the recipe to destroy the super-conference concept.

The other option is straight 16, which I’m sure you’d get behind. I initially made that model to work from and Louisiana and BYU (and Carolina 04-wine ) made it in, so there are still chances for non-P5 teams. Penn State didn’t really produce a profound case to be included this past season!

About the bolded part - why on earth would the B1G and SEC and the ACC and Big 12 put themselves in the position of having to make that choice? Why would these conferences, who control college athletics, endorse a system that puts them in this bind? I don't see it.

As for straight 16, IMO 16 is just too many, I like straight 8. But yes, if we have to go to 16, then straight 16.

The P5 and G5 are about to experience even a bigger gulf between them, in revenue, in ability to compete for top athletes, and in no way is the G5 making the cut for an expanded playoff system because it is Network driven and they want the largest markets possible involved. Why?

Right now they have AD's at the P5 level looking to recover what they are eyeballing as tremendous COVID losses, mostly due to gate and ticket donations more than TV revenue. The Networks see an opportunity to get around Conference Championship Games by promising more revenue to the P5 conferences for their participation in an 8 team playoff than by having the CCG's.

I actually think that an 8 team CFP will bring further consolidation in the P5 after then known effects of NIL and perhaps the removal of caps on stipends. Get down to a P4 (accomplished by the lure of money) and promise each conference that their division champions will be seeded in an 8 team national playoff.

This works because:
1. They offer more money for the 8 team playoff than they do now for CFP and the CCG's.
2. Everyone in the P5 really sees the year as less than optimum when they don't win the national championship and the risk of playing a team again that you've already beaten in the regular season in a CCG where key players might get injured is beginning to be irksome to coaching staffs and some fans even though publicly they lace them up and play because that's the way it is structured.
3. Guaranteeing each conference a regional site first round game against some other conference's #2 seed makes sense, reaches a broader base of fans every year, and holds the interest of the public who attends and the viewing audience.
4. Academics make no concessions in this plan as the number of games remains the same but the revenue goes up.

What I suspect will happen if we expand the playoffs is that the G5 will become a G4 and will hold something similar of their own.

So I don't see any Network driven expansion of the playoffs as an automatic sign that the G5 will be more included. In fact I see it as the bell tolling a more complete separation between the two.
04-24-2021 12:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,071
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 256
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Top of Mt Rushmore
Post: #30
RE: CFP Expansion
I don’t see the P5 giving up their CCGs without a fight. They are just too lucrative and I think fans will want to name one definitive conference winner rather than 2 division winners.
04-24-2021 12:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 27,010
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 3150
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #31
RE: CFP Expansion
(04-24-2021 12:31 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t see the P5 giving up their CCGs without a fight. They are just too lucrative and I think fans will want to name one definitive conference winner rather than 2 division winners.

It could easily be handled by naming a regular season winner or having co-champions if all factors are even and eliminating divisions and taking the top 2 finishers. But the premise here Muskie is that if they offer more revenue than the CFP and CCG money combined it can be accomplished.
04-24-2021 12:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,595
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1900
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #32
RE: CFP Expansion
(04-24-2021 12:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-24-2021 10:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-24-2021 09:05 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(04-24-2021 07:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-23-2021 08:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  Right. That’s why 16 is the best. You get the 10 conference champs maximizing conference CG’s and 6 at-large bids, which gives each P5 conference essentially two bids or more.

I'm not really sure that solves the issue he raised. Under your system, Boise would have made the playoffs four times the past seven seasons. I do not think FSU and Penn State have finished in the top 11 (which would be needed for a P5 to make the playoffs, assuming the champ is in the top 11) four times in the past seven years, much less Purdue.

With autobids, you are going to have G5 leaders who make the playoffs more frequently than all but the tippy-top P5.

I just looked up Penn State, one of the very most successful P5 teams of the past several years, with three trips to NY6 bowls. They would have made a 16-team playoff three times during the CFP time. Fewer than Boise, who hasn't been anywhere nearly as good.

What would that be, 3/7?

Then a program must decide: what’s more important the Big Ten contract or making the playoffs? Penn State is a program that could go Independent and secure their own TV deal while playing a softer schedule made up of eastern teams. I’m sure ESPN would love to have Penn State and Nebraska under their umbrella as Independents.

In some ways I see an expanded playoff being the recipe to destroy the super-conference concept.

The other option is straight 16, which I’m sure you’d get behind. I initially made that model to work from and Louisiana and BYU (and Carolina 04-wine ) made it in, so there are still chances for non-P5 teams. Penn State didn’t really produce a profound case to be included this past season!

About the bolded part - why on earth would the B1G and SEC and the ACC and Big 12 put themselves in the position of having to make that choice? Why would these conferences, who control college athletics, endorse a system that puts them in this bind? I don't see it.

As for straight 16, IMO 16 is just too many, I like straight 8. But yes, if we have to go to 16, then straight 16.

The P5 and G5 are about to experience even a bigger gulf between them, in revenue, in ability to compete for top athletes, and in no way is the G5 making the cut for an expanded playoff system because it is Network driven and they want the largest markets possible involved. Why?

Right now they have AD's at the P5 level looking to recover what they are eyeballing as tremendous COVID losses, mostly due to gate and ticket donations more than TV revenue. The Networks see an opportunity to get around Conference Championship Games by promising more revenue to the P5 conferences for their participation in an 8 team playoff than by having the CCG's.

I actually think that an 8 team CFP will bring further consolidation in the P5 after then known effects of NIL and perhaps the removal of caps on stipends. Get down to a P4 (accomplished by the lure of money) and promise each conference that their division champions will be seeded in an 8 team national playoff.

This works because:
1. They offer more money for the 8 team playoff than they do now for CFP and the CCG's.
2. Everyone in the P5 really sees the year as less than optimum when they don't win the national championship and the risk of playing a team again that you've already beaten in the regular season in a CCG where key players might get injured is beginning to be irksome to coaching staffs and some fans even though publicly they lace them up and play because that's the way it is structured.
3. Guaranteeing each conference a regional site first round game against some other conference's #2 seed makes sense, reaches a broader base of fans every year, and holds the interest of the public who attends and the viewing audience.
4. Academics make no concessions in this plan as the number of games remains the same but the revenue goes up.

What I suspect will happen if we expand the playoffs is that the G5 will become a G4 and will hold something similar of their own.

So I don't see any Network driven expansion of the playoffs as an automatic sign that the G5 will be more included. In fact I see it as the bell tolling a more complete separation between the two.

I dont know. That seems pretty pessimistic. Here's the problem from the Networks standpoint---they own ALL of it. CFP rights. P5 rights. G5 rights. FCS rights. They also know that splitting off the G5 will make it less valuable and splitting off the P5 from the G5 likley woudnt make P5 viewership any higher than it is now.

Worse yet---when you slice 65 fan bases from FBS and the CFP---thats more likely to REDUCE viewership. Dont get me wrong---I do think the networks would like to see more high value Bama vs Texas games---but cutting the G5 probably just nets you more Bama vs Purdue games. My sense is going to a 5-1-2 plan draws in the G5 fanbases (which is actually where most of the potential future growth in college viewership will have to come from) at a minimal cost of one playoff slot. Meanwhile, the 5-1-2 guarantees all P5 champs get in (meaning every P5 regular season conference championship race is meaningful and important). Finally, the two wild card picks keeps the "every game is a playoff beauty contest element" that people like to debate over beers alive.

You may be right that a split may come due to the financial gulf between the P5 and G5---but I dont think the networks actually WANT that. They WANT the biggest audience possible. That might mean they prefer 2 blue blood P5's in the championship game rather than a small school Cinderella taking one of those slots---but make no mistake--they want all the fans of every Cinderella school in America to be invested enough in the championship that they watch the NCG---whether a Cinderella makes the final or not. Thus, the Networks are going to have no problem with a plan that offers just enough access to the Cinderella's to keep those underdog fans interested. But a plan that puts a bunch of Cinderella's in the playoff....I dont see any way thats happening.
(This post was last modified: 04-24-2021 12:43 PM by Attackcoog.)
04-24-2021 12:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 17,761
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 825
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #33
RE: CFP Expansion
I agree that the biggest-budget programs have the biggest shortfalls in dollar amounts due to covid, because their operations are built around collecting the most revenue every year. They are motivated to want more TV money to fill those budget holes.

Someone, or some committee, will come up with something that the powers-that-be approve of, and then they'll take it to ESPN. What they can get the big boys to agree to will almost certainly be an 8-team format, or maybe only 6.

If ESPN will increase the current payout by a large amount, then they can implement the new format before the end of the current CFP contract.

If ESPN doesn't put enough money on the table, then the current CFP will continue until the end of the current contract, after which the TV rights go up for auction and they can go with whatever format TV will pay the most money for (provided the powers-that-be agree to the format that TV wants).
04-24-2021 12:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 27,010
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 3150
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #34
RE: CFP Expansion
(04-24-2021 12:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-24-2021 12:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-24-2021 10:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-24-2021 09:05 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(04-24-2021 07:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm not really sure that solves the issue he raised. Under your system, Boise would have made the playoffs four times the past seven seasons. I do not think FSU and Penn State have finished in the top 11 (which would be needed for a P5 to make the playoffs, assuming the champ is in the top 11) four times in the past seven years, much less Purdue.

With autobids, you are going to have G5 leaders who make the playoffs more frequently than all but the tippy-top P5.

I just looked up Penn State, one of the very most successful P5 teams of the past several years, with three trips to NY6 bowls. They would have made a 16-team playoff three times during the CFP time. Fewer than Boise, who hasn't been anywhere nearly as good.

What would that be, 3/7?

Then a program must decide: what’s more important the Big Ten contract or making the playoffs? Penn State is a program that could go Independent and secure their own TV deal while playing a softer schedule made up of eastern teams. I’m sure ESPN would love to have Penn State and Nebraska under their umbrella as Independents.

In some ways I see an expanded playoff being the recipe to destroy the super-conference concept.

The other option is straight 16, which I’m sure you’d get behind. I initially made that model to work from and Louisiana and BYU (and Carolina 04-wine ) made it in, so there are still chances for non-P5 teams. Penn State didn’t really produce a profound case to be included this past season!

About the bolded part - why on earth would the B1G and SEC and the ACC and Big 12 put themselves in the position of having to make that choice? Why would these conferences, who control college athletics, endorse a system that puts them in this bind? I don't see it.

As for straight 16, IMO 16 is just too many, I like straight 8. But yes, if we have to go to 16, then straight 16.

The P5 and G5 are about to experience even a bigger gulf between them, in revenue, in ability to compete for top athletes, and in no way is the G5 making the cut for an expanded playoff system because it is Network driven and they want the largest markets possible involved. Why?

Right now they have AD's at the P5 level looking to recover what they are eyeballing as tremendous COVID losses, mostly due to gate and ticket donations more than TV revenue. The Networks see an opportunity to get around Conference Championship Games by promising more revenue to the P5 conferences for their participation in an 8 team playoff than by having the CCG's.

I actually think that an 8 team CFP will bring further consolidation in the P5 after then known effects of NIL and perhaps the removal of caps on stipends. Get down to a P4 (accomplished by the lure of money) and promise each conference that their division champions will be seeded in an 8 team national playoff.

This works because:
1. They offer more money for the 8 team playoff than they do now for CFP and the CCG's.
2. Everyone in the P5 really sees the year as less than optimum when they don't win the national championship and the risk of playing a team again that you've already beaten in the regular season in a CCG where key players might get injured is beginning to be irksome to coaching staffs and some fans even though publicly they lace them up and play because that's the way it is structured.
3. Guaranteeing each conference a regional site first round game against some other conference's #2 seed makes sense, reaches a broader base of fans every year, and holds the interest of the public who attends and the viewing audience.
4. Academics make no concessions in this plan as the number of games remains the same but the revenue goes up.

What I suspect will happen if we expand the playoffs is that the G5 will become a G4 and will hold something similar of their own.

So I don't see any Network driven expansion of the playoffs as an automatic sign that the G5 will be more included. In fact I see it as the bell tolling a more complete separation between the two.

I dont know. That seems pretty pessimistic. Here's the problem from the Networks standpoint---they own ALL of it. CFP rights. P5 rights. G5 rights. FCS rights. They also know that splitting off the G5 will make it less valuable and splitting off the P5 from the G5 likley woudnt make P5 viewership any higher than it is now.

Worse yet---when you slice 65 fan bases from FBS and the CFP---thats more likely to REDUCE viewership. Dont get me wrong---I do think the networks would like to see more high value Bama vs Texas games---but cutting the G5 probably just nets you more Bama vs Purdue games. My sense is going to a 5-1-2 plan draws in the G5 fanbases at a minimal cost of one slot (which is actually where most of the potential future growth in college viewershp exists). Meanwhile, the 5-1-2 guarantees all P5 champs get in (meaning every P5 regular season conference championship race is meaningful and important). Finally, the two wild card picks keeps the "every game is a playoff beauty contest element" that people like to debate over beers alive.

A split may come due to the financial gulf---but I dont think the networks want that. They want the biggest audience possible. That might mean they prefer 2 blue blood P5's in the championship game rather than a small school Cinderella taking one of those slots---but make no mistake--they want all the fans of every Cinderella school in America to be invested enough in the championship that they watch---whether a Cinderella makes the final or not.

As we move to a streaming world schools that draw less actual viewers are less valuable. The move would be to accentuate the value that streaming places upon the most viewed. The CFP expanded by the Networks will be their chance to capture audience independent of streaming services unless that service also pays them the premium. It will therefore generate more interest than just school interest and the synergy of combining combinations of regional markets in the structure of the playoff will provide a payday much larger than the NCAA basketball tournament.

I'm not being optimistic, nor pessimistic, I simply telling you what the business factors will be and they will be for the maximization of exposure of the playoffs and for the maximum number of viewers. It is a commercial enterprise more than a sporting one.

And there is no Cinderella in an 8 team playoff and the presidents and commissioners of the P5 aren't going along with a 16 school playoff because of the academic calendar, the risk of injuries and the exposure to more CTE risk, and because they aren't gong to share the revenue pie more ways than the 5 way split now. And that's giving you credit for the erroneous assumption that the networks care about Cinderella. They don't. Cinderella plays on days and hours in a dance that the Prince never attends. That's how much the Networks care about Cinderella.

If it were left up to me all FBS champions would be in. But I'm not the arbiter of such constructs. Nothing that has transpired since OU/UGa vs the NCAA in the early 80's has indicated any altruism, sense of equity, or fair play, with what the Networks have done with realignment (which initially was market driven) and what they will do now with the playoffs (which will be a maximization of viewers with full knowledge that top brands draw more viewers than lesser known ones. So cynically, but very realistically, I expect further consolidation with accommodations given to the top brands both as schools and to conferences. Greed is good said Gordon Gekko and his character embodies the only ambition of any corporation, profit. Follow the money and you'll see the most likely outcome of all of this. So realism and cynicism says 8 teams divided among a P4.
(This post was last modified: 04-24-2021 12:59 PM by JRsec.)
04-24-2021 12:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,770
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 69
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #35
RE: CFP Expansion
At the moment we have only 4.5+ years left on the current arrangement. This is the time to bounce 63 expansion ideas around with the networks.

It might take at least a year to have the 63 ideas evaluated by the CFP committee if not more. The process of elimination will be slow.

Then the top ideas will have to be ranked and presented as recommendations to be considered, another 6 months.

TV partners will have their finalists to discuss, another 6 months. Finally a format will be selected and bowls will be notified. The bowl realignment usually takes a year with the P5 making adjustments to their top tier games and then shakeout to the G5.

If total the process takes 3 years I don't see them switching away from a 4 team playoff early before the contract is up.
(This post was last modified: 04-24-2021 01:21 PM by Kit-Cat.)
04-24-2021 01:21 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,850
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 283
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #36
RE: CFP Expansion
(04-24-2021 01:21 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  At the moment we have only 4.5+ years left on the current arrangement. This is the time to bounce 63 expansion ideas around with the networks.

It might take at least a year to have the 63 ideas evaluated by the CFP committee if not more. The process of elimination will be slow.

Then the top ideas will have to be ranked and presented as recommendations to be considered, another 6 months.

TV partners will have their finalists to discuss, another 6 months. Finally a format will be selected and bowls will be notified. The bowl realignment usually takes a year with the P5 making adjustments to their top tier games and then shakeout to the G5.

If total the process takes 3 years I don't see them switching away from a 4 team playoff early before the contract is up.

Agree. They will just play out the contract, but have the new format in place in about 2 years to negotiate the next contract.
04-24-2021 01:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 47,594
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1797
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #37
RE: CFP Expansion
(04-23-2021 07:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-23-2021 05:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Talk about the school presidents all you want, but the guy whose vote matters most is Jimmy Pitaro, the ESPN chairman. The CFP can't go anywhere but ESPN (or ABC) until after the current contract is supposed to end, so if ESPN doesn't put up a lot more money for an expanded playoff, then it won't happen soon.

ESPN would have loved a bigger playoff to begin with, so I think they would be happy to buy into an expanded playoff. The money was always there--it was the schools that were not willing to to it. That said---all the same logistics issues that existed then exist now. So most of those 63 scenarios are just tilting at windmills. Eight is the only realistic target and I think most understand that going in.

6 doesn't make much sense and they are very unlikely to go beyond 8 until they have tried 8 first.
04-24-2021 02:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,770
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 69
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #38
RE: CFP Expansion
The four models evaluated include 6,8,10,12,16. They didn't evaluate 4 teams so expansion has a good chance of happening. Three of the five models (6, 10, 12) would by default necessitate byes which make an expanded field more palatable to the Alabama's who don't want to have to play 4 games to win a championship.

Its possible we see alternative branding than the CFP. NY6 championship (12 team playoff) where 6 bowls are played with historical tie-ins (e.g. Rose w/ PAC-B1G) and then a bye for the top 2 in the next round which then is seeded.

At the moment we have a 4 team playoff hosted at various times by 6 bowls. Is the expansion going to be centered around more slots in in the playoff or more slots in the bowls? We could see a straight 6 team playoff hosted in 10 bowls with each of the 10 conference champions getting a slot in one of the 10 bowls. That would be a way to give more inventory to the networks while still controlling the playoff by a few.

G5 if offered a greater share of the access or greater share of the money will pick access, which in turn will generate more value for their regular season and CCGs.
04-24-2021 02:07 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,770
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 69
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #39
RE: CFP Expansion
(04-24-2021 02:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(04-23-2021 07:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-23-2021 05:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Talk about the school presidents all you want, but the guy whose vote matters most is Jimmy Pitaro, the ESPN chairman. The CFP can't go anywhere but ESPN (or ABC) until after the current contract is supposed to end, so if ESPN doesn't put up a lot more money for an expanded playoff, then it won't happen soon.

ESPN would have loved a bigger playoff to begin with, so I think they would be happy to buy into an expanded playoff. The money was always there--it was the schools that were not willing to to it. That said---all the same logistics issues that existed then exist now. So most of those 63 scenarios are just tilting at windmills. Eight is the only realistic target and I think most understand that going in.

6 doesn't make much sense and they are very unlikely to go beyond 8 until they have tried 8 first.

What though at the moment do you get for finishing #1 or #2 in the CFP rankings? Basically nothing because you play the #3 and #4 ranked team anyways in the semifinals.

If they could work in a bye system with a 6 team playoff finishing #1 or #2 would have itself a reward of needing one less game to win a championship.
04-24-2021 02:12 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crayton Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 692
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 64
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #40
RE: CFP Expansion
I believe the models examined "included" expanded playoffs of 6, 8, 12, 16. I'm sure modifications to the 4-team model were also examined.

The issue I see with BYEs is that networks and conferences will want to fill every added round with the big, TV brands. Like in the other thread, would the FBS add a round that consisted solely of Cincinnati vs. Coastal Carolina??? No way! They're going to want Notre Dame and Oklahoma and Ohio State all playing in that round too.
04-24-2021 03:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2021 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.