(04-25-2021 05:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(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.

Thats a popular belief---but I dont think there's all that much substance to it. The truth is---we dont know what we dont know. If I remember correctly, the #1 ranked team has only won the CFP once. The fourth place team won the national championship in just the second year of the new formats existence. That means Ohio St---who wouldnt have even participated in the 2-team BCS playoff--won the national championship. Thus, looking back on the BCS era---one has to wonder how many times did a team claim a national championship that they might not have won in the CFP era? I see no reason to think the same thing is not true for the CFP era vs an 8-team version of the playoff. Once expansion occurs, I suspect it wont take long for #5, #6, #7, or #8 seeded team to win a national championship.

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

Over the last 3 pre-pandemic seasons, semifinal games draw an average of roughly 20 million viewers each. CFP games that are not semis average roughly 10 million viewers each. Of course, which teams are in each game affects the ratings as well. (Data is from this table on Sports Media Watch: https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college...tings-bcs/ )

If those four non-semi CFP games become quarterfinals, and ESPN is still paying for 7 total games in the package, then it's likely they would be "trading" four games a year that average about 10 million viewers each for four games a year that average about 15 million viewers each.

How the money works is a bit tangled, because ESPN has one TV deal that covers the Peach, Cotton, and the CFP title game ($470 million/year for that package, which includes not just the games but the rights for ESPN to use the branding and to have the silly weekly TV show for the rankings), and separate TV deals with each of the Rose ($80 million/year), Sugar ($80 million/year), and Orange ($55 million/year) bowl games. All of those would likely need to be renegotiated if an 8-team playoff is implemented at any time within the next five seasons.

(04-25-2021 05:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 05:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(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.

Thats a popular belief---but I dont think there's all that much substance to it. The truth is---we dont know what we dont know. If I remember correctly, the #1 ranked team has only won the CFP once. The fourth place team won the national championship in just the second year of the new formats existence. That means Ohio St---who wouldnt have even participated in the 2-team BCS playoff--won the national championship. Thus, looking back on the BCS era---one has to wonder how many times did a team claim a national championship that they might not have won in the CFP era? I see no reason to think the same thing is not true for the CFP era vs an 8-team version of the playoff. Once expansion occurs, I suspect it wont take long for #5, #6, #7, or #8 seeded team to win a national championship.

I know what I've seen and Ohio State was the anomaly. You are seeing what you want to see in order to hold onto a desire. The best semifinal game thus far was OU/UGa which lived up to the hype. Ohio State over Alabama is the other solid semi. Most years there are 1 or 2 truly dominant programs and everyone else ranges from highly competitive to fortunate to get in.

(04-25-2021 05:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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.

Agree. I would have preferred no playoff to the old +1 after the bowls idea.

So long as the Playoff is 4 teams only, you will see no more than three dominant teams. And on Average 2 of them will be very strong.

If you go to 8 schools and every P5 conference sends a champion, you will see the very top talent spread from 3 (really 1 and 2 chasing) to about 8 schools. It'll take about five years to get the full effect, but an 8 school playoff will open up the number of teams with a serious chance.

I look at Basketball as the comparison, where 6 Major conference champions plus an average of 31 at-large to Major conference schools means that you are likely to get Championship Tournament exposure at over half the Major schools. And we see talent spread out better there. Sure a Duke team here, a Kentucky there are loaded, but there are lottery picks in a dozen teams in the Tournament. That is because players have more viable choices.

What I'm saying is a dominant Alabama, and two perennial chasers, is the natural result of a 4 team playoff structure. Limited access means limited opportunities to play on teams in the hunt, which means the very top player congregate to Alabama and it's closest chasers. More teams in means each of those top schools will get a couple fewer of those guys as players will have more choices.

(04-25-2021 10:00 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  So long as the Playoff is 4 teams only, you will see no more than three dominant teams. And on Average 2 of them will be very strong.

If you go to 8 schools and every P5 conference sends a champion, you will see the very top talent spread from 3 (really 1 and 2 chasing) to about 8 schools. It'll take about five years to get the full effect, but an 8 school playoff will open up the number of teams with a serious chance.

I look at Basketball as the comparison, where 6 Major conference champions plus an average of 31 at-large to Major conference schools means that you are likely to get Championship Tournament exposure at over half the Major schools. And we see talent spread out better there. Sure a Duke team here, a Kentucky there are loaded, but there are lottery picks in a dozen teams in the Tournament. That is because players have more viable choices.

What I'm saying is a dominant Alabama, and two perennial chasers, is the natural result of a 4 team playoff structure. Limited access means limited opportunities to play on teams in the hunt, which means the very top player congregate to Alabama and it's closest chasers. More teams in means each of those top schools will get a couple fewer of those guys as players will have more choices.

I can see that. Alabama can go into Florida and Georgia to get who they want because of their track record. Do you want an 80% chance at playing for a title or something closer to a 20% chance in the 4-5 years that you are with the school?

What I see with the basketball set up is there is a chance to get hot down the stretch, win your conference tournament and then make noise in the NCAAs. Expanding the CFP with autobids for conference champions could allow for a situation where a 8-4 team wins its division on the last weekend of the regular season, wins its CCG and then wins a playoff game.

It can't be all in for 370 teams like college basketball but it can be relevant for 50-60 universities if winning a CCG give you an autobid.

50-60 contending in the division (3-4 per division)
20 competing in CCG
10 CCG winners to a 12 or 16 team playoff.

(04-25-2021 05:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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 think the likely matchups are very similar to what we see in the NY6 these days, so to me the comparison is apt and obvious.

And we know that major bowl games have brand value right now, people know the Cotton Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, etc. and they draw decent ratings even when not part of the playoffs. Media pundits - the same kind that agitate for a 8-team playoff - may like to stir things up by calling these NY6 games "meaningless exhibitions", but I sure tune in for them, LOL.

Seems to me like you are banking on a big dose of additional interest (and thus money) when a Cotton Bowl game between teams like Penn State and Memphis is now labeled a playoff game and not the Cotton Bowl. I'm by no means convinced that is the case, and I suspect there won't be all *that* much more, not enough to be a big needle-mover in terms of money.

But maybe we shall see.

(04-26-2021 10:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 05:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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:  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. All we are talking about here is snapping on an extra first round--probably the week after championship Saturday. After that first round, your down to 4 teams---and the CFP basically would play out just like it does now from that point on.

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 think the likely matchups are very similar to what we see in the NY6 these days, so to me the comparison is apt and obvious.

And we know that major bowl games have brand value right now, people know the Cotton Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, etc. and they draw decent ratings even when not part of the playoffs. Media pundits - the same kind that agitate for a 8-team playoff - may like to stir things up by calling these NY6 games "meaningless exhibitions", but I sure tune in for them, LOL.

Seems to me like you are banking on a big dose of additional interest (and thus money) when a Cotton Bowl game between teams like Penn State and Memphis is now labeled a playoff game and not the Cotton Bowl. I'm by no means convinced that is the case, and I suspect there won't be all *that* much more, not enough to be a big needle-mover in terms of money.

But maybe we shall see.

Well---I think that because the first round game is not likely to be at the Cotton Bowl. I think that because the first round game is not likely to be played on New Years Day. I think that because the CFP games that mean something get higher ratings than the bowl games that don't decide the championship.

Look, the Cotton and Rose will still be there in their normal place and time. The same games you watch currently (semi-final round) will be played in those bowls on New Years Day--just as they have been for years. This first round is likley to be very high value games played in early December--likely in the home stadiums of the higher ranked team involved in each first round pairing. These will be games that mean a great deal and will be played in a largely empty space on the college schedule. So yeah---I think they will do extremely well.

(04-25-2021 05:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 05:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(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.

Thats a popular belief---but I dont think there's all that much substance to it. The truth is---we dont know what we dont know. If I remember correctly, the #1 ranked team has only won the CFP once. The fourth place team won the national championship in just the second year of the new formats existence. That means Ohio St---who wouldnt have even participated in the 2-team BCS playoff--won the national championship. Thus, looking back on the BCS era---one has to wonder how many times did a team claim a national championship that they might not have won in the CFP era? I see no reason to think the same thing is not true for the CFP era vs an 8-team version of the playoff. Once expansion occurs, I suspect it wont take long for #5, #6, #7, or #8 seeded team to win a national championship.

Well, in seven years of the CFP, the national champ has been one of the top two seeds, what would have been the BCS matchup, 5 out of 7 years. The exceptions being 2014 (Ohio State) and 2017 (Alabama).

So 2/7 is not that high a percentage, IMO. And, if we expand to 8, we'd expect diminishing returns on it happening outside the top 4. It's one thing for one top-four team to be better than another. It's another for a top 5-8 team to really be best. That's much less likely.

And one reason is, whereas 1-4 is often a guessing game as far seedings because the teams are unlikely to have played (e.g., 12-0 Clemson vs 12-0 Alabama vs 12-0 Ohio State, we don't have direct evidence of who is better so who gets seeded higher is more of a guess), with 5-8, we often have game results vs higher ranked teams. E.g., in 2019, Georgia was #5 - but we had just seen them lose big to #1 LSU in the SEC title game. Wisconsin was #8 - and they had lost to #2 Ohio State. Baylor was #7 and they had lost to #4 Oklahoma.

So that gives us a lot more certainty about how good those 5-8 teams are relative to other playoff teams compared to seeds 1 - 4.

Plus, there's a reason that JR's position is "popular" - most of the semifinal games have been blowouts or easy wins. That does not suggest we need more teams in the playoffs. All it suggests is that about 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 years, the CFP mistakenly seeds the #2 team as the #4 team, or vice-versa.

Finally, as to the G5 autobid aspect - the G5 teams have lost their last three NY6 games. Overall, G5 champs are 3-4 in NY6 games, games played against P5 that were clearly outside the playoff mix. That doesn't suggest the need for G5 involvement, at least not at the "auto" level.

(04-26-2021 10:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 05:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 05:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(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.

Thats a popular belief---but I dont think there's all that much substance to it. The truth is---we dont know what we dont know. If I remember correctly, the #1 ranked team has only won the CFP once. The fourth place team won the national championship in just the second year of the new formats existence. That means Ohio St---who wouldnt have even participated in the 2-team BCS playoff--won the national championship. Thus, looking back on the BCS era---one has to wonder how many times did a team claim a national championship that they might not have won in the CFP era? I see no reason to think the same thing is not true for the CFP era vs an 8-team version of the playoff. Once expansion occurs, I suspect it wont take long for #5, #6, #7, or #8 seeded team to win a national championship.

Well, in seven years of the CFP, the national champ has been one of the top two seeds, what would have been the BCS matchup, 5 out of 7 years. The exceptions being 2014 (Ohio State) and 2017 (Alabama).

So 2/7 is not that high a percentage, IMO. And, if we expand to 8, we'd expect diminishing returns on it happening outside the top 4. It's one thing for one top-four team to be better than another. It's another for a top 5-8 team to really be best. That's much less likely.

And one reason is, whereas 1-4 is often a guessing game as far seedings because the teams are unlikely to have played (e.g., 12-0 Clemson vs 12-0 Alabama vs 12-0 Ohio State, we don't have direct evidence of who is better so who gets seeded higher is more of a guess), with 5-8, we often have game results vs higher ranked teams. E.g., in 2019, Georgia was #5 - but we had just seen them lose big to #1 LSU in the SEC title game. Wisconsin was #8 - and they had lost to #2 Ohio State. Baylor was #7 and they had lost to #4 Oklahoma.

So that gives us a lot more certainty about how good those 5-8 teams are relative to other playoff teams compared to seeds 1 - 4.

Plus, there's a reason that JR's position is "popular" - most of the semifinal games have been blowouts or easy wins. That does not suggest we need more teams in the playoffs. All it suggests is that about 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 years, the CFP mistakenly seeds the #2 team as the #4 team, or vice-versa.

Finally, as to the G5 autobid aspect - the G5 teams have lost their last three NY6 games. Overall, G5 champs are 3-4 in NY6 games, games played against P5 that were clearly outside the playoff mix. That doesn't suggest the need for G5 involvement, at least not at the "auto" level.

Exactly. In other words---the committee was wrong. In the BCS days---the data suggests that the BCS didnt even have the right team in the playoff about a third of the time. The ONLY way we know that is because we expanded the field to 4. Your explanation that the seedings are off because the teams havent played each other----well---yeah---Of course. Thats the EXACT same reason the rankings will be off (apparently about one-third of the time). As I said before to JR---we dont know what we dont know. Yes---I absolutely believe a 5 through 8 seed will be less likley to win the championship (thats the way it works in most every sport!). But I also believe it probably wont take very long for a 5-8 seed to win it. We all know eventually one of those lower 4 seeds is going to break through.

In an 8 team playoff, the first round would likely be played in early December. I could even see the start of the college season being moved up a week to the week before Labor Day to accommodate the playoffs. With expanded NFL playoffs, there will be less space available for college playoffs in January.

If you are eliminated in this early first playoff round, does that mean your season is over, or will the four losers move on to an NY6 game that isn't hosting a semifinal? Will those games be viewed as unattractive, because they are essentially consolation games? And will the host cities of the playoff bowls get the influx of tourists they enjoyed when those New Years bowl games were just fun rewards for fans as well as players instead of business trips?

The old adage "be careful what you wish for" applies to playoff expansion. Because whether the outcome of expansion is good or bad, we will never go back.

I concur with Attackcoog. I think you increase the media value of a sporting event when something is on the line—like the opportunity to advance for a chance at a national title. Part of this is also contingent on the brands involved. If you did a 5-1-6 playoff you’d be giving a lot of teams hope. Sure, one of the top 4 seeds will probably win but you’ve created a 4 week spectacle beginning 7-10 days before NYD. That hope is good for ratings late in the regular season and great for the CCGs.

11 of the 12 schools involved are probably going to big name programs. All the Ps get a slot (good for the weaker Ps), the G5 have a slot (better than 0), and the strong P conferences have ample opportunity for multiple bids, and ND has a good shot of making the field if they are 10-2 or better.

Cut the NY6 down to the NY4 (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange) and let those be the quarter final sites on/around NYD.

(04-25-2021 10:00 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  So long as the Playoff is 4 teams only, you will see no more than three dominant teams. And on Average 2 of them will be very strong.

If you go to 8 schools and every P5 conference sends a champion, you will see the very top talent spread from 3 (really 1 and 2 chasing) to about 8 schools. It'll take about five years to get the full effect, but an 8 school playoff will open up the number of teams with a serious chance.

I look at Basketball as the comparison, where 6 Major conference champions plus an average of 31 at-large to Major conference schools means that you are likely to get Championship Tournament exposure at over half the Major schools. And we see talent spread out better there. Sure a Duke team here, a Kentucky there are loaded, but there are lottery picks in a dozen teams in the Tournament. That is because players have more viable choices.

What I'm saying is a dominant Alabama, and two perennial chasers, is the natural result of a 4 team playoff structure. Limited access means limited opportunities to play on teams in the hunt, which means the very top player congregate to Alabama and it's closest chasers. More teams in means each of those top schools will get a couple fewer of those guys as players will have more choices.

In the last few years we've seen Alabama and Ohio St. steal top players from all over the country. They have definitely benefitted from the current system.

(04-26-2021 12:05 PM)ken d Wrote:  In an 8 team playoff, the first round would likely be played in early December. I could even see the start of the college season being moved up a week to the week before Labor Day to accommodate the playoffs. With expanded NFL playoffs, there will be less space available for college playoffs in January.

If you are eliminated in this early first playoff round, does that mean your season is over, or will the four losers move on to an NY6 game that isn't hosting a semifinal? Will those games be viewed as unattractive, because they are essentially consolation games? And will the host cities of the playoff bowls get the influx of tourists they enjoyed when those New Years bowl games were just fun rewards for fans as well as players instead of business trips?

The old adage "be careful what you wish for" applies to playoff expansion. Because whether the outcome of expansion is good or bad, we will never go back.

The first round of quarterfinals will likely be NYD to protect the current big bowls.

(04-26-2021 12:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I concur with Attackcoog. I think you increase the media value of a sporting event when something is on the line—like the opportunity to advance for a chance at a national title. Part of this is also contingent on the brands involved. If you did a 5-1-6 playoff you’d be giving a lot of teams hope. Sure, one of the top 4 seeds will probably win but you’ve created a 4 week spectacle beginning 7-10 days before NYD. That hope is good for ratings late in the regular season and great for the CCGs.

11 of the 12 schools involved are probably going to big name programs. All the Ps get a slot (good for the weaker Ps), the G5 have a slot (better than 0), and the strong P conferences have ample opportunity for multiple bids, and ND has a good shot of making the field if they are 10-2 or better.

Cut the NY6 down to the NY4 (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange) and let those be the quarter final sites on/around NYD.

A guaranteed P5 slot also increases the value of the CCGs.

Right now, the CCGs and regular conference titles are somewhat diminished with this 4 team playoff.

(04-26-2021 02:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 12:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I concur with Attackcoog. I think you increase the media value of a sporting event when something is on the line—like the opportunity to advance for a chance at a national title. Part of this is also contingent on the brands involved. If you did a 5-1-6 playoff you’d be giving a lot of teams hope. Sure, one of the top 4 seeds will probably win but you’ve created a 4 week spectacle beginning 7-10 days before NYD. That hope is good for ratings late in the regular season and great for the CCGs.

11 of the 12 schools involved are probably going to big name programs. All the Ps get a slot (good for the weaker Ps), the G5 have a slot (better than 0), and the strong P conferences have ample opportunity for multiple bids, and ND has a good shot of making the field if they are 10-2 or better.

Cut the NY6 down to the NY4 (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange) and let those be the quarter final sites on/around NYD.

A guaranteed P5 slot also increases the value of the CCGs.

Right now, the CCGs and regular conference titles are somewhat diminished with this 4 team playoff.

CCGs between two teams who’ve been pretty much eliminated from contention are sad affairs.

So are CCGs where one school is pretty much a lock and the other is a woefully outmatched winner of a weak division (I’m talking about you ACC).

If the P5 CCGs are the ticket punch to the playoffs they are going to be bigger deals and attract more viewers.

(04-26-2021 02:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 12:05 PM)ken d Wrote:  In an 8 team playoff, the first round would likely be played in early December. I could even see the start of the college season being moved up a week to the week before Labor Day to accommodate the playoffs. With expanded NFL playoffs, there will be less space available for college playoffs in January.

If you are eliminated in this early first playoff round, does that mean your season is over, or will the four losers move on to an NY6 game that isn't hosting a semifinal? Will those games be viewed as unattractive, because they are essentially consolation games? And will the host cities of the playoff bowls get the influx of tourists they enjoyed when those New Years bowl games were just fun rewards for fans as well as players instead of business trips?

The old adage "be careful what you wish for" applies to playoff expansion. Because whether the outcome of expansion is good or bad, we will never go back.

The first round of quarterfinals will likely be NYD to protect the current big bowls.

Agreed.

It's the least disruptive to the system.

Plus, there's a legal reason, too: the bowls are the contractual mechanism that enable the P5 to secure their "auto-bids" (which would really be contract bids) similar to the current CFP system (and the past BCS system, for that matter). The P5 won't (and can't) get into a room together and collectively decide that they'll be the only 5 conferences that get bids to this new playoff system. (That would likely be an illegal collusion in violation of antitrust law.) Instead, they can approach this in the exact same manner as the CFP system: any conference that can convince a bowl that paying $40 million (or likely much more in a playoff system) for their conference champion is worth more than an at-large bid is free to enter into a contract with such bowl. Of course, we all reasonably know that the only ones that are worth that much are the P5 champs, so they get the plausible deniability in that they're just letting the free market work. Once again, that's the argument that they use now: they're not preventing the AAC, MWC or any other G5 conference from getting a contract with an NY6 bowl, but rather the NY6 bowls aren't interested.

(04-26-2021 02:42 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 02:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 12:05 PM)ken d Wrote:  In an 8 team playoff, the first round would likely be played in early December. I could even see the start of the college season being moved up a week to the week before Labor Day to accommodate the playoffs. With expanded NFL playoffs, there will be less space available for college playoffs in January.

If you are eliminated in this early first playoff round, does that mean your season is over, or will the four losers move on to an NY6 game that isn't hosting a semifinal? Will those games be viewed as unattractive, because they are essentially consolation games? And will the host cities of the playoff bowls get the influx of tourists they enjoyed when those New Years bowl games were just fun rewards for fans as well as players instead of business trips?

The old adage "be careful what you wish for" applies to playoff expansion. Because whether the outcome of expansion is good or bad, we will never go back.

The first round of quarterfinals will likely be NYD to protect the current big bowls.

Agreed.

It's the least disruptive to the system.

Plus, there's a legal reason, too: the bowls are the contractual mechanism that enable the P5 to secure their "auto-bids" (which would really be contract bids) similar to the current CFP system (and the past BCS system, for that matter). The P5 won't (and can't) get into a room together and collectively decide that they'll be the only 5 conferences that get bids to this new playoff system. (That would likely be an illegal collusion in violation of antitrust law.) Instead, they can approach this in the exact same manner as the CFP system: any conference that can convince a bowl that paying $40 million (or likely much more in a playoff system) for their conference champion is worth more than an at-large bid is free to enter into a contract with such bowl. Of course, we all reasonably know that the only ones that are worth that much are the P5 champs, so they get the plausible deniability in that they're just letting the free market work. Once again, that's the argument that they use now: they're not preventing the AAC, MWC or any other G5 conference from getting a contract with an NY6 bowl, but rather the NY6 bowls aren't interested.

To be fair, access to the actual playoff has never had any direct dependence on having a contract bowl during the CFP era. Those contract bowls ties are about access to the biggest bowls--AND--of course--- who gets a "full share" payout----but those contract bowls never had a thing to do with who's actually in the playoff during the CFP era. That said---its not hard to craft language that does basically the same thing as making sure the P5 champs get in as well as top G5---but doesnt violate the law. It could be as simple as saying "the top 6 highest ranked conference champs get auto-bids with 2 wild cards selected by the committee". There might be one---but I cant remember a year where a P5 champ would have been eliminated with that "top 6 conference champs" language. I agree--you have to be careful---but I think there are ways to accomplish an effective 5-1-2 without getting into anti-trust trouble.

(04-26-2021 11:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 10:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 05:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 05:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(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.

Thats a popular belief---but I dont think there's all that much substance to it. The truth is---we dont know what we dont know. If I remember correctly, the #1 ranked team has only won the CFP once. The fourth place team won the national championship in just the second year of the new formats existence. That means Ohio St---who wouldnt have even participated in the 2-team BCS playoff--won the national championship. Thus, looking back on the BCS era---one has to wonder how many times did a team claim a national championship that they might not have won in the CFP era? I see no reason to think the same thing is not true for the CFP era vs an 8-team version of the playoff. Once expansion occurs, I suspect it wont take long for #5, #6, #7, or #8 seeded team to win a national championship.

Well, in seven years of the CFP, the national champ has been one of the top two seeds, what would have been the BCS matchup, 5 out of 7 years. The exceptions being 2014 (Ohio State) and 2017 (Alabama).

So 2/7 is not that high a percentage, IMO. And, if we expand to 8, we'd expect diminishing returns on it happening outside the top 4. It's one thing for one top-four team to be better than another. It's another for a top 5-8 team to really be best. That's much less likely.

And one reason is, whereas 1-4 is often a guessing game as far seedings because the teams are unlikely to have played (e.g., 12-0 Clemson vs 12-0 Alabama vs 12-0 Ohio State, we don't have direct evidence of who is better so who gets seeded higher is more of a guess), with 5-8, we often have game results vs higher ranked teams. E.g., in 2019, Georgia was #5 - but we had just seen them lose big to #1 LSU in the SEC title game. Wisconsin was #8 - and they had lost to #2 Ohio State. Baylor was #7 and they had lost to #4 Oklahoma.

So that gives us a lot more certainty about how good those 5-8 teams are relative to other playoff teams compared to seeds 1 - 4.

Plus, there's a reason that JR's position is "popular" - most of the semifinal games have been blowouts or easy wins. That does not suggest we need more teams in the playoffs. All it suggests is that about 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 years, the CFP mistakenly seeds the #2 team as the #4 team, or vice-versa.

Finally, as to the G5 autobid aspect - the G5 teams have lost their last three NY6 games. Overall, G5 champs are 3-4 in NY6 games, games played against P5 that were clearly outside the playoff mix. That doesn't suggest the need for G5 involvement, at least not at the "auto" level.

Exactly. In other words---the committee was wrong. In the BCS days---the data suggests that the BCS didnt even have the right team in the playoff about a third of the time. The ONLY way we know that is because we expanded the field to 4. Your explanation that the seedings are off because the teams havent played each other----well---yeah---Of course. Thats the EXACT same reason the rankings will be off (apparently about one-third of the time). As I said before to JR---we dont know what we dont know. Yes---I absolutely believe a 5 through 8 seed will be less likley to win the championship (thats the way it works in most every sport!). But I also believe it probably wont take very long for a 5-8 seed to win it. We all know eventually one of those lower 4 seeds is going to break through.

Any of the Top 8 are beatable if they don't show up.

That is the problem with an enlarged championship it doesn't find necessarily the best team but makes a champion out of a school that is deserving by virtue of winning it.

In basketball the champion every year has multiple losses. Going the route of an 8 team playoff will make it that much harder to go undefeated.

-win your division
-win your CCG
-win the playoff

It becomes more merit based than a mythical NC.

I don't know what is fair for the G5. The two highest rated champions would prevent a situation where it scales out to a G6, G7, G8 ect. Also prevents a situation where the quality transfers to the P5 (e.g. AAC schools moving to a P5).

That as why I think 12 using the NY6 (5-2-5) is the sweet spot. Play the bowls but then give the top 2 regular season rated teams a bye after the bowls provided they can win.

(04-26-2021 02:57 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 11:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 10:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 05:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 05:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  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.

Thats a popular belief---but I dont think there's all that much substance to it. The truth is---we dont know what we dont know. If I remember correctly, the #1 ranked team has only won the CFP once. The fourth place team won the national championship in just the second year of the new formats existence. That means Ohio St---who wouldnt have even participated in the 2-team BCS playoff--won the national championship. Thus, looking back on the BCS era---one has to wonder how many times did a team claim a national championship that they might not have won in the CFP era? I see no reason to think the same thing is not true for the CFP era vs an 8-team version of the playoff. Once expansion occurs, I suspect it wont take long for #5, #6, #7, or #8 seeded team to win a national championship.

Well, in seven years of the CFP, the national champ has been one of the top two seeds, what would have been the BCS matchup, 5 out of 7 years. The exceptions being 2014 (Ohio State) and 2017 (Alabama).

So 2/7 is not that high a percentage, IMO. And, if we expand to 8, we'd expect diminishing returns on it happening outside the top 4. It's one thing for one top-four team to be better than another. It's another for a top 5-8 team to really be best. That's much less likely.

And one reason is, whereas 1-4 is often a guessing game as far seedings because the teams are unlikely to have played (e.g., 12-0 Clemson vs 12-0 Alabama vs 12-0 Ohio State, we don't have direct evidence of who is better so who gets seeded higher is more of a guess), with 5-8, we often have game results vs higher ranked teams. E.g., in 2019, Georgia was #5 - but we had just seen them lose big to #1 LSU in the SEC title game. Wisconsin was #8 - and they had lost to #2 Ohio State. Baylor was #7 and they had lost to #4 Oklahoma.

So that gives us a lot more certainty about how good those 5-8 teams are relative to other playoff teams compared to seeds 1 - 4.

Plus, there's a reason that JR's position is "popular" - most of the semifinal games have been blowouts or easy wins. That does not suggest we need more teams in the playoffs. All it suggests is that about 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 years, the CFP mistakenly seeds the #2 team as the #4 team, or vice-versa.

Finally, as to the G5 autobid aspect - the G5 teams have lost their last three NY6 games. Overall, G5 champs are 3-4 in NY6 games, games played against P5 that were clearly outside the playoff mix. That doesn't suggest the need for G5 involvement, at least not at the "auto" level.

Exactly. In other words---the committee was wrong. In the BCS days---the data suggests that the BCS didnt even have the right team in the playoff about a third of the time. The ONLY way we know that is because we expanded the field to 4. Your explanation that the seedings are off because the teams havent played each other----well---yeah---Of course. Thats the EXACT same reason the rankings will be off (apparently about one-third of the time). As I said before to JR---we dont know what we dont know. Yes---I absolutely believe a 5 through 8 seed will be less likley to win the championship (thats the way it works in most every sport!). But I also believe it probably wont take very long for a 5-8 seed to win it. We all know eventually one of those lower 4 seeds is going to break through.

Any of the Top 8 are beatable if they don't show up.

That is the problem with an enlarged championship it doesn't find necessarily the best team but makes a champion out of a school that is deserving by virtue of winning it.

In basketball the champion every year has multiple losses. Going the route of an 8 team playoff will make it that much harder to go undefeated.

-win your division
-win your CCG
-win the playoff

It becomes more merit based than a mythical NC.

I don't know what is fair for the G5. The two highest rated champions would prevent a situation where it scales out to a G6, G7, G8 ect. Also prevents a situation where the quality transfers to the P5 (e.g. AAC schools moving to a P5).

That as why I think 12 using the NY6 (5-2-5) is the sweet spot. Play the bowls but then give the top 2 regular season rated teams a bye after the bowls provided they can win.

To be clear---Im not against "bigger". Id love nothing better than a 16 team playoff where every conference champ is in as well as some deserving wildcards. I just dont think its realistic. Logistically--I think the time frame window is big enough for 8 teams---and thats about it. Then, there is the fact college football accepts change at a snails pace. Getting them to agree to 8 is not going to be simple---jumping to more than 8--given the current attitudes on time, logistics, and player safety---just seems like a bridge too far. If done right, a 5-1-2 8-team playoff is an excellent compromise format that will be very popular and very likley will be in place for a very long time.