(04-24-2021 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(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:  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 ) 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.

I dont disagree with most of what you said. Where we disagree is I actually believe there are market reasons for the Networks to want the P5 and G5 to remain connected and for the an 8-team playoff to include a legit path for a G5 school. As far as a money split---I don think the networks care how its split and frankly--I thnk the current split between the P5 and G5 is probably about right. A legit G5 path to the playoff has nothing what so ever to do with who should get the lions share of the money. The P5 should obviously get most of the money. A G5 playoff path in no way changes that.

But while there is no argument that the P5 bring more value---My point is--the networks dont care. Right now the networks get both the P5 and G5 audience for the FBS playoff they paid big bucks for. I see no "market" argument for the networks to have any desire to give up 20% (or whatever college sports audience percentage one wishes to assign to the G5) of the audience. There is no "market" reason to do that. Now maybe the financial costs will eventually cause many G5's to drop out of FBS on thier own accord---but thats entirely different from the tv networks demanding a split.

Understand---I have no illusions about a 16 team playoff, any equal monetary split, or any expectation that every G5 champ will get a slot. All Im saying is I think the networks have zero desire for a split (keeps the total viewership larger) and I suspect the networks would be thrilled to death to see a legit playoff path for the G5 as that brings interest from an entire corner of the sports fans that simply wasnt very invested in the CFP because it basically never included that half of FBS. None of that means that the top P5 brands will receive any less preferential treatment---I suspect they make even more money--not to mention seeing a 75% increase in CFP participation by the blue bloods (with an 8 team playoff, 3 more P5 teams are in every year even with the 1 slot being given to the G5).

That said---the entire recruiting world is about to change with a combination of the "one free transfer rule" and unrestricted NIL. Near wild west free agency is almost upon us. So--who knows how this will all shake out.

(04-24-2021 02:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  6 doesn't make much sense and they are very unlikely to go beyond 8 until they have tried 8 first.

Exactly. Eight adds one week of playoff football, which should be possible without losing a regular season game. Eight allows auto bids to the Power Five Conference Champions, a bid to the best G5 school, and two at large bids to the best of the rest, which would include any of the ten FBS conferences or FBS independents. There would still be schools that get left out that felt they should have made it and that controversy is actually good for college football.

With the additional revenue from four additional playoff games. all of the FBS conferences should do well. I would also think receiving more revenue should mean distributing more revenue to the FCS conferences, which under the new transfer rules will function as a minor league for FBS football. In 2018-2019, ten FCS conferences each received $263,218. That number should be significantly increased, for the good of D1 football.
https://businessofcollegesports.com/2018...f-payouts/

(04-24-2021 03:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(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:  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.

I dont disagree with most of what you said. Where we disagree is I actually believe there are market reasons for the Networks to want the P5 and G5 to remain connected and for the an 8-team playoff to include a legit path for a G5 school. As far as a money split---I don think the networks care how its split and frankly--I thnk the current split between the P5 and G5 is probably about right. A path to the playoff has nothing to do what so ever with who should get the lions share of the money. The P5 should obviously get most of the money.

But while there is no argument that the P5 bring more value---My point is--the networks dont care. Right now they get both the P5 and G5 audience for their FBS playoff. I see no "market" argument for the networks to have any desire to give up 20% (or whatever college sports audience percentage one wishes to assign to the G5) of the audience. There is no "market" reason to do that. Now maybe the financial costs will cause many G5's to drop out of FBS on thier own accord---but thats entirely different from the tv networks demanding a split.

Understand---I have no illusions about a 16 team playoff, any equal monetary split, or any expectation that every G5 champ will get a slot. All Im saying is I think the networks have zero desire for a split (keeps the total viewership larger) and I suspect the networks would be thrilled to death to see at least a path for the G5 (if not an autobid for the top G5 conference like in the 5-1-2 plan) as that brings interest from an entire corner of the world that simply wasnt very invested in the CFP because it basically never included half the sports schools.

I could see 72 possibly making a P4 and that accounting for the best draws in the present G5. It would bring more balance to a breakaway upper division. But other than to fill niche time slots I don't see the compelling reason to keep most of the G5.

Look what we are looking at within 10 years, and all of the building going on at the major state schools is in preparation for, is a major downsizing in duplicated higher ed costs for states after Boomer's statistically pass by 2036. This is exactly why the brands will be consolidating further. They want recognition for enrollment and want to be able to offer the full campus experience to get it. They have more political power and they are using it now for those purposes. But this is ancillary to what the networks want. They want a stable mini NFL with a built in matriculating fan base. The two things (rise of the networks and demographic paradigm shift will work with synergy.

I don't think in 10 years the G5 will even exist as it is presently comported. I think we will have an upper tier and that many of the G5 schools will opt for the next lower rung. Houston, Cincinnati, East Carolina (only hurt by 4 other North Carolina Schools already in the P4) USF, UCF, BYU, San Diego State, Boise State, possibly Fresno State, Colorado State, Memphis possibly and the Service Academies will all have choices to make. But an upper tier is coming if for no other reason than to increase media payouts by having 12 P games. We've only just started with the major changes that will be coming. The upper tier's impetus will be a shrinking personal donor base and along with the death of Boomers a shrinkage in the tax base as well.

For Playoff expansion, you can never expand too slowly. You need to get paid for each incremental step.

So... Expand to 5 teams, teams 4 and 5 play a play-in game around Christmas and all the P5 champs get an auto-bid.
Do that for a few years and...
Expand to 6 teams. Same as 5 teams except there's 1 wild card and teams 3, 4, 5 and 6 play 2 play-in games around Christmas.
Do that for a few years and....
Expand to 8 teams. 5-1-2 format. 5 P5 auto-bids, 1 G5 auto-bid and 2 at large bids.

(04-24-2021 04:26 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  For Playoff expansion, you can never expand too slowly. You need to get paid for each incremental step.

I think one problem with college expansion is that many around here (not saying you, btw) seem to think college football expansion is like pro sports expansion, where basically it goes without saying that the networks want more playoff games and will pay accordingly.

But the reason that's true for the NFL or MLB or whatever is that the public views all the teams as basically equals. I mean sure, some teams have more glamor than others - the Lakers and Celtics in hoops, the Cowboys and Packers and Steelers in the NFL, for example - but basically all the teams are regarded as pretty much equal. And that's because structurally, they are. So NFL fans are by definition interested in all 32 teams. Sure, a Packers vs Cowboys playoff game will draw more than the Chargers vs the Dolphins, but not by *that* much.

But IMO, college football is different. CFB only draws big money national interest for about 20 or so teams. Below that, interest, and ratings drop off dramatically. That's why an LSU vs Alabama game might draw 10 million viewers but a San Jose State vs Akron game might only draw 300,000, more than 30x fewer viewers. You don't get anything like that ratings spread in the pros. And even among big names, national interest can fall sharply if the teams aren't really good. An 11-0 Penn State will draw a huge audience. A 8-3 Penn State, significantly less.

So I don't think going to 8 will result in the big splurge of new money that going to 4 did. Four is still very exclusive, your still going to get big name vs big name in those games and they will all have stellar records. But once you go to 8, and especially if you start including G5 autobids and the like, the diminishing returns will kick in dramatically. Now you're talking lesser names and teams with maybe 2-3 losses. National interest in college football falls steeply then.

The upshot: I think those who think 8 team playoff, those four quarterfinals, will be a huge increase money bonanza like the BCS was and then the CFP was are in for a rude awakening. It wouldn't surprise me if the money doesn't go up much at all, because basically you'll just be taking what is now an NY6 game but calling it a playoff game. I'm not sure the ratings go up much for that.

But maybe we shall see.

(04-24-2021 10:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 04:26 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  For Playoff expansion, you can never expand too slowly. You need to get paid for each incremental step.

I think one problem with college expansion is that many around here (not saying you, btw) seem to think college football expansion is like pro sports expansion, where basically it goes without saying that the networks want more playoff games and will pay accordingly.

But the reason that's true for the NFL or MLB or whatever is that the public views all the teams as basically equals. I mean sure, some teams have more glamor than others - the Lakers and Celtics in hoops, the Cowboys and Packers and Steelers in the NFL, for example - but basically all the teams are regarded as pretty much equal. And that's because structurally, they are. So NFL fans are by definition interested in all 32 teams. Sure, a Packers vs Cowboys playoff game will draw more than the Chargers vs the Dolphins, but not by *that* much.

But IMO, college football is different. CFB only draws big money national interest for about 20 or so teams. Below that, interest, and ratings drop off dramatically. That's why an LSU vs Alabama game might draw 10 million viewers but a San Jose State vs Akron game might only draw 300,000, more than 30x fewer viewers. You don't get anything like that ratings spread in the pros. And even among big names, national interest can fall sharply if the teams aren't really good. An 11-0 Penn State will draw a huge audience. A 8-3 Penn State, significantly less.

So I don't think going to 8 will result in the big splurge of new money that going to 4 did. Four is still very exclusive, your still going to get big name vs big name in those games and they will all have stellar records. But once you go to 8, and especially if you start including G5 autobids and the like, the diminishing returns will kick in dramatically. Now you're talking lesser names and teams with maybe 2-3 losses. National interest in college football falls steeply then.

The upshot: I think those who think 8 will be a huge increase money bonanza like the BCS was and then the CFP was are in for a rude awakening. But maybe we shall see.

Yep, it is why I said if we went to 8 it would mean that consolidation to a P4 would have happened and everyone would get their top two or the two division champions into an 8 team playoff that matched #1's against #2's in a way to maximize interest nationwide. If the networks fork over for it they want maximum exposure with top brands to make those quarterfinal games must see.

(04-24-2021 10:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 04:26 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  For Playoff expansion, you can never expand too slowly. You need to get paid for each incremental step.

I think one problem with college expansion is that many around here (not saying you, btw) seem to think college football expansion is like pro sports expansion, where basically it goes without saying that the networks want more playoff games and will pay accordingly.

But the reason that's true for the NFL or MLB or whatever is that the public views all the teams as basically equals. I mean sure, some teams have more glamor than others - the Lakers and Celtics in hoops, the Cowboys and Packers and Steelers in the NFL, for example - but basically all the teams are regarded as pretty much equal. And that's because structurally, they are. So NFL fans are by definition interested in all 32 teams. Sure, a Packers vs Cowboys playoff game will draw more than the Chargers vs the Dolphins, but not by *that* much.

But IMO, college football is different. CFB only draws big money national interest for about 20 or so teams. Below that, interest, and ratings drop off dramatically. That's why an LSU vs Alabama game might draw 10 million viewers but a San Jose State vs Akron game might only draw 300,000, more than 30x fewer viewers. You don't get anything like that ratings spread in the pros. And even among big names, national interest can fall sharply if the teams aren't really good. An 11-0 Penn State will draw a huge audience. A 8-3 Penn State, significantly less.

So I don't think going to 8 will result in the big splurge of new money that going to 4 did. Four is still very exclusive, your still going to get big name vs big name in those games and they will all have stellar records. But once you go to 8, and especially if you start including G5 autobids and the like, the diminishing returns will kick in dramatically. Now you're talking lesser names and teams with maybe 2-3 losses. National interest in college football falls steeply then.

The upshot: I think those who think 8 team playoff, those four quarterfinals, will be a huge increase money bonanza like the BCS was and then the CFP was are in for a rude awakening. It wouldn't surprise me if the money doesn't go up much at all, because basically you'll just be taking what is now an NY6 game but calling it a playoff game. I'm not sure the ratings go up much for that.

But maybe we shall see.

It hasnt worked that way for the NCAA Tournament contract. Every expansion has led to explosive growth in the tournaments popularity and media value. In fact--there's not a single expansion of a major playoff that I can think of that hasnt resulted in increased viewership and popularity. I believe the first two rounds of the NCAA basketball tournament actually draw more total viewers than that final 4. For instance, the Sweet Sixteen round of games in 2019 averaged 12.8 million viewers each. Thats almost 77 million viewers.

Like I said---zero reason to believe the 4 extra CFP games would not extremely attractive and valuable media properties. And if ESPN thinks they have little value---Im sure FOX or CBS would be interested.

(04-25-2021 02:33 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I believe the first two rounds of the NCAA basketball tournament actually draw more total viewers than that final 4.

So if you add up the viewership of the 60 games of the first two rounds, that adds up to more viewership than the 3 games of the final four. I don't think anyone will be surprised by that. But, the audience for each final four game is typically 5 to 10 times the audience for each first round game, and about twice the audience for sweet 16 or elite 8 games, comparing apples to apples (ie comparing games on CBS to games on CBS). Obviously the gap between audience sizes might be less if, for example, there was a Duke vs. Kansas sweet 16 game and the final was, well, Baylor vs. Gonzaga.

One relevant takeaway from March Madness is this: The whole thing lasts only three weeks (really three weekends if you consider the first four is kind of just a sideshow in terms of audience size). When coaches wanted to expand March Madness to 96 teams, CBS and Turner told the NCAA they didn't think that was worth much of an increase in TV money. That suggests that an 8-team CFB playoff, over three weeks of games, would still hold a TV audience, but going beyond that into four or more weeks of games runs a big risk of stretching the audience too thin to justify a big increase in money over a three-week playoff.

(04-25-2021 02:33 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  And if ESPN thinks they have little value---Im sure FOX or CBS would be interested.

If ESPN doesn't want to pay more, then the discussion stops right there for at least a few years, because ESPN has the CFP under contract for five more seasons, through the 2025-26 season. The playoff won't be expanded before then unless it stays on ESPN or ABC.

(04-24-2021 04:26 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  For Playoff expansion, you can never expand too slowly. You need to get paid for each incremental step.

So... Expand to 5 teams, teams 4 and 5 play a play-in game around Christmas and all the P5 champs get an auto-bid.
Do that for a few years and...
Expand to 6 teams. Same as 5 teams except there's 1 wild card and teams 3, 4, 5 and 6 play 2 play-in games around Christmas.
Do that for a few years and....
Expand to 8 teams. 5-1-2 format. 5 P5 auto-bids, 1 G5 auto-bid and 2 at large bids.

The SEC and Big will never agree to 5 teams. They both have very real chances at 2 teams with only 4. They might go with 6, Where they are guaranteed one with a real shot at 2 teams.

(04-25-2021 07:33 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 04:26 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  For Playoff expansion, you can never expand too slowly. You need to get paid for each incremental step.

So... Expand to 5 teams, teams 4 and 5 play a play-in game around Christmas and all the P5 champs get an auto-bid.
Do that for a few years and...
Expand to 6 teams. Same as 5 teams except there's 1 wild card and teams 3, 4, 5 and 6 play 2 play-in games around Christmas.
Do that for a few years and....
Expand to 8 teams. 5-1-2 format. 5 P5 auto-bids, 1 G5 auto-bid and 2 at large bids.

The SEC and Big will never agree to 5 teams. They both have very real chances at 2 teams with only 4. They might go with 6, Where they are guaranteed one with a real shot at 2 teams.

Ya. What type of playoff would those two conferences agree to? The only thing I can thing is further consolidation. SEC and Big Ten get auto-bids to the semis. MAYBE 8 teams if there are limits on auto-bids and together they can get 4+ in most years.

(04-24-2021 10:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The upshot: I think those who think 8 team playoff, those four quarterfinals, will be a huge increase money bonanza like the BCS was and then the CFP was are in for a rude awakening. It wouldn't surprise me if the money doesn't go up much at all, because basically you'll just be taking what is now an NY6 game but calling it a playoff game. I'm not sure the ratings go up much for that.

I think that's an excellent point.

(04-25-2021 02:33 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 10:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 04:26 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  For Playoff expansion, you can never expand too slowly. You need to get paid for each incremental step.

I think one problem with college expansion is that many around here (not saying you, btw) seem to think college football expansion is like pro sports expansion, where basically it goes without saying that the networks want more playoff games and will pay accordingly.

But the reason that's true for the NFL or MLB or whatever is that the public views all the teams as basically equals. I mean sure, some teams have more glamor than others - the Lakers and Celtics in hoops, the Cowboys and Packers and Steelers in the NFL, for example - but basically all the teams are regarded as pretty much equal. And that's because structurally, they are. So NFL fans are by definition interested in all 32 teams. Sure, a Packers vs Cowboys playoff game will draw more than the Chargers vs the Dolphins, but not by *that* much.

But IMO, college football is different. CFB only draws big money national interest for about 20 or so teams. Below that, interest, and ratings drop off dramatically. That's why an LSU vs Alabama game might draw 10 million viewers but a San Jose State vs Akron game might only draw 300,000, more than 30x fewer viewers. You don't get anything like that ratings spread in the pros. And even among big names, national interest can fall sharply if the teams aren't really good. An 11-0 Penn State will draw a huge audience. A 8-3 Penn State, significantly less.

So I don't think going to 8 will result in the big splurge of new money that going to 4 did. Four is still very exclusive, your still going to get big name vs big name in those games and they will all have stellar records. But once you go to 8, and especially if you start including G5 autobids and the like, the diminishing returns will kick in dramatically. Now you're talking lesser names and teams with maybe 2-3 losses. National interest in college football falls steeply then.

The upshot: I think those who think 8 team playoff, those four quarterfinals, will be a huge increase money bonanza like the BCS was and then the CFP was are in for a rude awakening. It wouldn't surprise me if the money doesn't go up much at all, because basically you'll just be taking what is now an NY6 game but calling it a playoff game. I'm not sure the ratings go up much for that.

But maybe we shall see.

It hasnt worked that way for the NCAA Tournament contract. Every expansion has led to explosive growth in the tournaments popularity and media value. In fact--there's not a single expansion of a major playoff that I can think of that hasnt resulted in increased viewership and popularity. I believe the first two rounds of the NCAA basketball tournament actually draw more total viewers than that final 4. For instance, the Sweet Sixteen round of games in 2019 averaged 12.8 million viewers each. Thats almost 77 million viewers.

Like I said---zero reason to believe the 4 extra CFP games would not extremely attractive and valuable media properties. And if ESPN thinks they have little value---Im sure FOX or CBS would be interested.

I think the reason is that with the current four team CFP system, we already have pretty good surrogates for those extra playoff games, in the form of the other NY6 games. For example, under an 8-team playoff this year, the Georgia vs Cincy Peach Bowl and the Florida vs Oklahoma Cotton Bowl would have been CFP quarterfinal games. And the current CFP package already pays for those.

So it's not like TV would be getting "brand new" matchups that they currently aren't paying for. They would be getting pretty much the same matchups, but instead of being labeled a "Cotton Bowl", it is now a round-of-eight playoff game.

Is that label worth a little more money? Probably. But much more? I doubt it. Not a big needle-mover, IMO.

But maybe we shall see.

Keep the play off the way it is. The highest ranked Conference Championship Game Champions get the top 4 slots in the semi's on NYD, and the top G5 and other lower ranked Champions get the at large spots on NYD / NYE. The Conference Championship Games become part of the play off system as round one. The NYD / NYE Bowls retain their importance in the play off system as round two, and the College Championship Playoff Game is played one week later without adding any more games leading to potential injuries for the players. Problem solved.

(04-24-2021 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(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:  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 ) 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.

One risk to getting an 8 team playoff that you didn't mention, and a certain barrier to a 16 team playoff, player compensation. When the money goes up, everyone will want to get a piece.

It’s a double edged sword. If you go straight 16, then there will be voter bias against the G5 in order to shut them out. If a spot is guaranteed to the highest ranked G5, then one or more P5 schools ranked ahead of said G5 school will have a legitimate beef.

If you do conference champions plus the highest ranked G5 champ plus 10 at large, there are most likely going to be schools with a legit gripe. It’s a no win situation.

I think any changes to CFP are going to take into account these things:

No regular season games are going to be sacrificed—no one is going to want to give up a potential home date to make way for a small handful of schools getting an extra post-season competition.

The CCGs are here to stay—Sorry JR, they are just too valuable to give up, especially since it’s guaranteed revenue that doesn’t have to be shared with other conferences.

The P5s are going to want guaranteed inclusion. Larry Scott’s successor isn’t going to agree to anything that can leave his conference out.

The G5 is going to get something. Whether it’s a guaranteed slot, a conditional slot, or a guaranteed slot in a consolation, NY6 bowl.

The media partners are going to demand compelling games. With all respect to fans of a 16-team, 10 autobid plan, 4-5 of the 8 first round games are likely going to be blood baths between legitimate title contenders and the G5 representatives. This does not make for good television and the media partners aren’t going to want to pay for them.

Here are the set ups that I think could work:

5-1-2 The ever so popular, P5 champs, a G5 champ, and 2 at larges plan. Use the NY6 bowls as quarter final sites.

5-1*-2 The 5-1-2 with stipulations on the G5 champ

5-1-6 I see this as a possibility too. It adds 2 extra weeks to the post season rather than just 1 but the top 4 seeds would have a bye. 1st round games could be on campus sites. I see the SEC liking this option due to the large number of at large slots. Deep conferences could have lots of teams in the field. In terms of participants, you’re essentially having the same mix as you do now in the NY6.

I know it's not going to happen, but I think a 4 team playoff AFTER the current bowl format would be fun.

The NY6 stays the same with their selection criteria with the 4 best teams after the bowl matchups being picked for a playoff

(04-25-2021 08:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 02:33 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 10:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 04:26 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  For Playoff expansion, you can never expand too slowly. You need to get paid for each incremental step.

I think one problem with college expansion is that many around here (not saying you, btw) seem to think college football expansion is like pro sports expansion, where basically it goes without saying that the networks want more playoff games and will pay accordingly.

But the reason that's true for the NFL or MLB or whatever is that the public views all the teams as basically equals. I mean sure, some teams have more glamor than others - the Lakers and Celtics in hoops, the Cowboys and Packers and Steelers in the NFL, for example - but basically all the teams are regarded as pretty much equal. And that's because structurally, they are. So NFL fans are by definition interested in all 32 teams. Sure, a Packers vs Cowboys playoff game will draw more than the Chargers vs the Dolphins, but not by *that* much.

But IMO, college football is different. CFB only draws big money national interest for about 20 or so teams. Below that, interest, and ratings drop off dramatically. That's why an LSU vs Alabama game might draw 10 million viewers but a San Jose State vs Akron game might only draw 300,000, more than 30x fewer viewers. You don't get anything like that ratings spread in the pros. And even among big names, national interest can fall sharply if the teams aren't really good. An 11-0 Penn State will draw a huge audience. A 8-3 Penn State, significantly less.

So I don't think going to 8 will result in the big splurge of new money that going to 4 did. Four is still very exclusive, your still going to get big name vs big name in those games and they will all have stellar records. But once you go to 8, and especially if you start including G5 autobids and the like, the diminishing returns will kick in dramatically. Now you're talking lesser names and teams with maybe 2-3 losses. National interest in college football falls steeply then.

The upshot: I think those who think 8 team playoff, those four quarterfinals, will be a huge increase money bonanza like the BCS was and then the CFP was are in for a rude awakening. It wouldn't surprise me if the money doesn't go up much at all, because basically you'll just be taking what is now an NY6 game but calling it a playoff game. I'm not sure the ratings go up much for that.

But maybe we shall see.

It hasnt worked that way for the NCAA Tournament contract. Every expansion has led to explosive growth in the tournaments popularity and media value. In fact--there's not a single expansion of a major playoff that I can think of that hasnt resulted in increased viewership and popularity. I believe the first two rounds of the NCAA basketball tournament actually draw more total viewers than that final 4. For instance, the Sweet Sixteen round of games in 2019 averaged 12.8 million viewers each. Thats almost 77 million viewers.

Like I said---zero reason to believe the 4 extra CFP games would not extremely attractive and valuable media properties. And if ESPN thinks they have little value---Im sure FOX or CBS would be interested.

I think the reason is that with the current four team CFP system, we already have pretty good surrogates for those extra playoff games, in the form of the other NY6 games. For example, under an 8-team playoff this year, the Georgia vs Cincy Peach Bowl and the Florida vs Oklahoma Cotton Bowl would have been CFP quarterfinal games. And the current CFP package already pays for those.

So it's not like TV would be getting "brand new" matchups that they currently aren't paying for. They would be getting pretty much the same matchups, but instead of being labeled a "Cotton Bowl", it is now a round-of-eight playoff game.

Is that label worth a little more money? Probably. But much more? I doubt it. Not a big needle-mover, IMO.

But maybe we shall see.

Of course they are getting brand new matchups. These matchups would be driven entirely by rank seedings---they would have NOTHING to do with predetermined "bowl ties" like the current bowls your comparing them to. Furthermore---I dont know that ANY bowl game is a very good surrogate for a new round of playoffs. Havent we all pretty much admitted that bowl games are essentially meaningless exhibitions in the new CFP era? You really think we are the only portion of the public who's caught on to this? Certainly the players opting out of bowl games in droves has to be giving the public a pretty big hint on the importance of a non-playoff bowl game.

The fact is there is no reason to think the general public would not be riveted to the first round any less than they are by the sweet 16 round of the playoffs. Given that football is far more popular than college basketball---there is zero doubt that these first round games would be extremely valuable media properties.

I see no reason to go beyond 8.

I think a consensus favorite is the 5-2-1 formula, with a NY6 forming the quarter finals, and the championship game pushed back a week. Semi finals are in a TBD situation, but I think FTT is correct that the best solution is site provided by the highest two seeds to win the first round game (can be their home stadium or a near enough NFL stadium, so cold weather teams can play in domes).

I suspect a majority also like the qualifying game pitting the top two non-power conference teams (ND counts as power), played the week of the Army-Navy game.

Now is that on the exploration team's agenda? Don't know. But anyone with a media platform some of them might look at it would be great if you put that out as a popular idea on the forum. Doesn't mean any of the real players buy in, just that it's a fan idea.

(04-25-2021 05:20 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  I see no reason to go beyond 8.

I think a consensus favorite is the 5-2-1 formula, with a NY6 forming the quarter finals, and the championship game pushed back a week. Semi finals are in a TBD situation, but I think FTT is correct that the best solution is site provided by the highest two seeds to win the first round game (can be their home stadium or a near enough NFL stadium, so cold weather teams can play in domes).

I suspect a majority also like the qualifying game pitting the top two non-power conference teams (ND counts as power), played the week of the Army-Navy game.

Now is that on the exploration team's agenda? Don't know. But anyone with a media platform some of them might look at it would be great if you put that out as a popular idea on the forum. Doesn't mean any of the real players buy in, just that it's a fan idea.

So far there hasn't been much reason to have 4 schools. Most year's the semis have been blowouts and the final two were pretty clear cut. Expanding the playoffs will demean the regular season and having a regular season that counts sells tickets.