(05-03-2021 01:20 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 01:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I’ve said this before and I will say it again. The 5-1-2 is still alive because the G5 don’t have an incentive to back the 12 team model. They know too well that there will be only one G5 representative in the playoff whether it’s 5-1-2 or 5-1-6. And under the 5-1-6, the G5 team will not get a bye. Why would they support the 12 team model? The ACC won’t see much benefit either and the article states “New ACC commissioner Jim Phillips says it is “premature” to assume the playoff will expand.”

ND and the SEC will prefer the 5-1-6 over the 5-1-2 in my opinion. It’ll be interesting to watch how this unfolds.

I've an$wered thi$ before and I will an$wer it again. The rea$on they will end up moving to a 5-1-6 model i$ that it will generate con$iderably more money by having 4 more game$ to $ell to the network($) that broadca$t them. The majority of that money will obviou$ly go to the conference$ and team$ that participate in them, but a portion will be pa$$ed along to everybody el$e, re$ulting in a higher overall payout. Plu$, having a guaranteed repre$entative i$ far better than the G5 ha$ managed to do throughout the entirety of the CFP to date, $o having to play in the extra game i$ $TILL better than being $y$tematically excluded every year.

U$FFan

Of course, money is good. But if money is everything, why not go wirh the 16 playoff? More games and more $$$. The SI article does not seem to indicate the 12 team playoff is a done deal.

(05-03-2021 01:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 01:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I’ve said this before and I will say it again. The 5-1-2 is still alive because the G5 don’t have an incentive to back the 12 team model. They know too well that there will be only one G5 representative in the playoff whether it’s 5-1-2 or 5-1-6. And under the 5-1-6, the G5 team will not get a bye. Why would they support the 12 team model?

This isn't an all-night diner. They're not going to get a long menu of choices. There will be one proposal that has the most support, and the only question will be whether to go with that format or stick with the current CFP. If the choice is between the current 4 and a 12 team format, and the 12 team deal gives everyone more money, then every G5 conference will support the 12 team format.

True. But coming up with that one proposal will require lots of negotiation. What CFP work group (only 4 members) reports will not necessarilly be same as the one proposal to be made by the CFP committtee, which includes all G5. Am I mistaken here?

24 team playoff - all 10 Conference Champs and 14 At-Large bids. Top 8 get a bye.

Most years it could be 19 P5 teams and 5 G5 teams.

(05-03-2021 02:26 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 01:22 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 01:19 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  So many details to work out, but here is a thought: if the 5-1-2 model gets approved, and the G5 gets a guaranteed access spot, does the AAC still fight to be disassociated from the G5?

Of course they'll still fight to be looked as differently from the G5. It will actually probably intensify since the reward for being the top G5 champ will become a shot in the playoff for a national championship as opposed to a consolation bowl game. The AAC will definitely want to be seen as a material step above over all of the G5 leagues.

So how do they go about that? Do they attempt to solidify themselves as the top-G5 conference by regularly securing the G5 bid in a hypothetically expanded CFP? Or, do they say we are already better than the G5, so we do not need they guaranteed playoff spot (and wish to compete for one of the open wildcard spots)?

Option A still groups the AAC with the G5 (after Aresco has repeatedly said they do not want to be associated with the G5); Option B makes the AAC Champion's pathway into the expanded playoff harder (with no guaranteed playoff spot pathway).

I'm assuming here that (a) the P5 champs are all getting auto-bids, (b) the top G5 champ is getting an auto-bid, and © the AAC is NOT getting its own auto-bid like the P5.

Under the assumptions above, if you're asking whether the AAC would unilaterally remove itself from qualifying for the top G5 champ slot on a matter of principle/branding, then no, absolutely not. That would possibly be the clearest case of cutting off your nose to spite your face in the history of sports!

As much as the AAC wants that separation from the rest of the G5, they sure as heck aren't giving up that type of playoff access unless the AAC is getting its own auto-bid like the P5 champs.

(05-02-2021 09:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Personally, i love "bowl mania", totally enjoy watching all those little bowls between around December 18 and December 28, before the big bowls start.

I agree. The bowls are great and they will never go away. The bowls are a reward for having a winning record or not having a losing record. Coaches love the extra practice, which they can use to develop the younger players in preparation for spring ball. Coaches get their bonus. Each player receives up to $550.00 in gifts from the bowl. The teams get to visit some nice locations for the bowl games. ESPN makes a profit on the games. The teams can also make a profit from the bowl games.

Teams that don’t reach bowl games are limited to mandatory weight training, conditioning and review of game film between the end of the regular season and January 1st. They get a maximum of eight hours per week for those activities, including no more than two hours per week of film viewing. Coaches agree these rules give bowl teams a major advantage because they essentially get a head start on preparing for the following season, in addition to the recruiting advantages. So this system is not changing.

(05-03-2021 02:37 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 01:20 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 01:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I’ve said this before and I will say it again. The 5-1-2 is still alive because the G5 don’t have an incentive to back the 12 team model. They know too well that there will be only one G5 representative in the playoff whether it’s 5-1-2 or 5-1-6. And under the 5-1-6, the G5 team will not get a bye. Why would they support the 12 team model? The ACC won’t see much benefit either and the article states “New ACC commissioner Jim Phillips says it is “premature” to assume the playoff will expand.”

ND and the SEC will prefer the 5-1-6 over the 5-1-2 in my opinion. It’ll be interesting to watch how this unfolds.

I've an$wered thi$ before and I will an$wer it again. The rea$on they will end up moving to a 5-1-6 model i$ that it will generate con$iderably more money by having 4 more game$ to $ell to the network($) that broadca$t them. The majority of that money will obviou$ly go to the conference$ and team$ that participate in them, but a portion will be pa$$ed along to everybody el$e, re$ulting in a higher overall payout. Plu$, having a guaranteed repre$entative i$ far better than the G5 ha$ managed to do throughout the entirety of the CFP to date, $o having to play in the extra game i$ $TILL better than being $y$tematically excluded every year.

U$FFan

Of course, money is good. But if money is everything, why not go wirh the 16 playoff? More games and more $$$. The SI article does not seem to indicate the 12 team playoff is a done deal.

Well, as I always remind people here, it's not just about the money in an absolute sense.

It's about the money SPLIT in a relative sense.

As the SI article noted, the current CFP revenue split is around 80/20 between the P5 and G5. A playoff system that would turn that into, say, a 70/30 split may not be worth it for the P5 even if the P5 might actually make more absolute dollars under that system. The evolutionary need to preserve *relative* power is wildly underrated by people in general.

Also, you have to look at revenue holistically. There's no doubt that a larger college football playoff system would make more money by itself. However, what the P5 do NOT want to see happen is what we now see with the NCAA Tournament. In basketball, the NCAA Tournament has essentially hoovered up all of the TV revenue for that sport and left little value to the regular season by comparison.

By contrast, college football TV revenue is still largely about the regular season, which is important for the P5 because they have complete control over their regular season revenue. Therefore, a playoff system cannot be so large that it takes away the value of their regular season TV contracts. I think an 8-team playoff with P5 auto-bids enhances the value of the P5 regular season TV contracts because it turns their conference championship games into de facto playoff games. Once you get a playoff larger than that, then you likely start having diminishing returns.

(05-03-2021 02:37 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 01:20 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 01:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I’ve said this before and I will say it again. The 5-1-2 is still alive because the G5 don’t have an incentive to back the 12 team model. They know too well that there will be only one G5 representative in the playoff whether it’s 5-1-2 or 5-1-6. And under the 5-1-6, the G5 team will not get a bye. Why would they support the 12 team model? The ACC won’t see much benefit either and the article states “New ACC commissioner Jim Phillips says it is “premature” to assume the playoff will expand.”

ND and the SEC will prefer the 5-1-6 over the 5-1-2 in my opinion. It’ll be interesting to watch how this unfolds.

I've an$wered thi$ before and I will an$wer it again. The rea$on they will end up moving to a 5-1-6 model i$ that it will generate con$iderably more money by having 4 more game$ to $ell to the network($) that broadca$t them. The majority of that money will obviou$ly go to the conference$ and team$ that participate in them, but a portion will be pa$$ed along to everybody el$e, re$ulting in a higher overall payout. Plu$, having a guaranteed repre$entative i$ far better than the G5 ha$ managed to do throughout the entirety of the CFP to date, $o having to play in the extra game i$ $TILL better than being $y$tematically excluded every year.

U$FFan

Of course, money is good. But if money is everything, why not go wirh the 16 playoff? More games and more $$$. The SI article does not seem to indicate the 12 team playoff is a done deal.

The trouble with a 16 is that your opening round has 8 games. That pretty much necessitates airing games simultaneously, which canibalizes the television audience.

If you’re trying to play the opening round in the 2nd or 3rd weekend of December that gets rough. If you only have 4 games you need to fit in that weekend then you do a Friday prime time game and then a a Saturday triple header.

The alternative for 16 would be to wait until around New Years to play the opening 8 games but then you’re dragging college football even deeper into January or even February.

(05-03-2021 03:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  In basketball, the NCAA Tournament has essentially hoovered up all of the TV revenue for that sport and left little value to the regular season by comparison.

I don't believe in that myth. The NCAA tournament has been at 64 or more teams since before ESPN, and before ESPN there was at most one or two national college hoops telecasts per week. March Madness did not kill interest in televised regular season college hoops, because there was very little in existence before March Madness.

One could argue that in a way the effect is the opposite, that March Madness stimulated greater interest in college basketball overall and led to the environment in which ESPN or Fox airs college hoops at least four days a week in January and February.

(05-03-2021 04:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 03:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  In basketball, the NCAA Tournament has essentially hoovered up all of the TV revenue for that sport and left little value to the regular season by comparison.

I don't believe in that myth. The NCAA tournament has been at 64 or more teams since before ESPN, and before ESPN there was at most one or two national college hoops telecasts per week. March Madness did not kill interest in televised regular season college hoops, because there was very little in existence before March Madness.

One could argue that in a way the effect is the opposite, that March Madness stimulated greater interest in college basketball overall and led to the environment in which ESPN or Fox airs college hoops at least four days a week in January and February.

At the risk of being pedantic, the NCAA tournament went to 64 in the mid 80's. ESPN started in the '70's.

USFFan

I think 8 will be the minimum of the expansion for reasons that have been discussed.

Part of the reason I see 12 as the possible ending point is because it will offer a first round bye to the top teams. I think that's a feature that Power leagues will enjoy. At the same time, it not only creates a few more games, but it adds more squads to the equation without really upping the number of games that any given team plays.

Technically, a team could begin in the round of 12 and conclude in the championship game, but I think that is unlikely. The winners of the tournament will come from the top 4 most likely which means very few teams add any more games.

Having 12 will create the opportunity for 8 games on campus instead of just 4. The top seeds will get a home game, but conference winners likely get one as well in addition to the auto-bid.

I know some extoll the virtues of the bowl system, but you have to keep in mind that most teams don't actually make money off their bowl games. There are reasons to have practice in the Winter or give winning coaches an opportunity to collect a bonus. The bowl system; with its expensive travel, disruptive schedule, and unattractive locations sucks money out of the system. The schools can do better. They can still play games and not worry about the bowls.

I think college basketball regular season is definitely hurt by the torunament. There are die hards who care regardless and the regular season is good for casual viewing if you are sitting looking for something, but there really is no must watch games. You can have the #1 and #2 teams in the country playing and it just doesn't feel like there are any stakes to me half the time (you are both going to the torunament as high seeds).

This is what I will personally miss with a bigger playoff (4 is already worse than 2, but not too big to end this completely). I love watching a team playing (whom I might have no otherwise interest in) knowing that they have to win to stay in the national title chase. Lose any game, they leave everything up to chance. It creates a lot of early/mid-season very big games when otherwise the stakes would feel far less.

I get the issues with the system, but this is what made me love the sport (and not just my own team) and it is very sad to see the transformation to be just like every other sport. I will still love it, but a piece of it is dying to me.

(05-04-2021 07:36 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think college basketball regular season is definitely hurt by the torunament. There are die hards who care regardless and the regular season is good for casual viewing if you are sitting looking for something, but there really is no must watch games. You can have the #1 and #2 teams in the country playing and it just doesn't feel like there are any stakes to me half the time (you are both going to the torunament as high seeds).

This is what I will personally miss with a bigger playoff (4 is already worse than 2, but not too big to end this completely). I love watching a team playing (whom I might have no otherwise interest in) knowing that they have to win to stay in the national title chase. Lose any game, they leave everything up to chance. It creates a lot of early/mid-season very big games when otherwise the stakes would feel far less.

I get the issues with the system, but this is what made me love the sport (and not just my own team) and it is very sad to see the transformation to be just like every other sport. I will still love it, but a piece of it is dying to me.

I agree with respect to the basketball regular season.

Where I’d disagree is that an 8-team or even 12-team college football playoff would cause the loss of interest in the regular season in the same way as the NCAA Tournament. Those college football playoff formats are still so limited in their field sizes that the regular season still has a huge impact, and more importantly, suddenly has a ton of more impact for more than just 6 or 7 teams per year.

You’re an Ohio State fan, so sure, the current system has a lot of excitement with lots of national games that impact *your* team. There’s a different interest in those games for you when your team is consistently in the national title race. However, that’s simply not the case for the vast majority of college football overall. Even if you personally like the current system now (which I understand), try to put yourself in the shoes of the 99% of other schools that only see the national college playoff race as a neutral exercise that they don’t realistically participate in at all. What they see is a regular season that is meaningless for most of college football by the end of September and that’s going to degrade interest in the sport over time.

As I’ve said elsewhere, fan passion is rooted in cheering for *your* team which then is parlayed into national interest. For as much as we like saying that college football is a regional sport, it paradoxically has had a national championship system that’s the other way around where they expect fans to be interested in games where they have zero impact on the fortunes on their own favorite teams. That might have worked in the past when fans were satisfied with simply making a lower tier bowl game, but that’s simply not the case now. When the national conversation has totally shifted to almost complete focus on who makes the playoff, the fact that an insanely tiny percentage of teams have even a chance at it in any given year (much less actually make it) is a huge long-term risk for the sport if it’s not changed. I think the powers that be realize that - the longer that the CFP is seen as an Alabama/Ohio State/Clemson Invitational, the more that their product is devalued.

UTEP has never been a national title contender. Theres dozens of teams in a similar position, G5 and P5.

Expanding the playoff to 8 or 12 wont change that.

Title hopes have never been a reason for following college football, for me at least.

Everyone is not entitled to a fake title that isnt even a real NCAA playoff.

(05-03-2021 03:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 02:37 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 01:20 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 01:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I’ve said this before and I will say it again. The 5-1-2 is still alive because the G5 don’t have an incentive to back the 12 team model. They know too well that there will be only one G5 representative in the playoff whether it’s 5-1-2 or 5-1-6. And under the 5-1-6, the G5 team will not get a bye. Why would they support the 12 team model? The ACC won’t see much benefit either and the article states “New ACC commissioner Jim Phillips says it is “premature” to assume the playoff will expand.”

ND and the SEC will prefer the 5-1-6 over the 5-1-2 in my opinion. It’ll be interesting to watch how this unfolds.

I've an$wered thi$ before and I will an$wer it again. The rea$on they will end up moving to a 5-1-6 model i$ that it will generate con$iderably more money by having 4 more game$ to $ell to the network($) that broadca$t them. The majority of that money will obviou$ly go to the conference$ and team$ that participate in them, but a portion will be pa$$ed along to everybody el$e, re$ulting in a higher overall payout. Plu$, having a guaranteed repre$entative i$ far better than the G5 ha$ managed to do throughout the entirety of the CFP to date, $o having to play in the extra game i$ $TILL better than being $y$tematically excluded every year.

U$FFan

Of course, money is good. But if money is everything, why not go wirh the 16 playoff? More games and more $$$. The SI article does not seem to indicate the 12 team playoff is a done deal.

Well, as I always remind people here, it's not just about the money in an absolute sense.

It's about the money SPLIT in a relative sense.

As the SI article noted, the current CFP revenue split is around 80/20 between the P5 and G5. A playoff system that would turn that into, say, a 70/30 split may not be worth it for the P5 even if the P5 might actually make more absolute dollars under that system. The evolutionary need to preserve *relative* power is wildly underrated by people in general.

Also, you have to look at revenue holistically. There's no doubt that a larger college football playoff system would make more money by itself. However, what the P5 do NOT want to see happen is what we now see with the NCAA Tournament. In basketball, the NCAA Tournament has essentially hoovered up all of the TV revenue for that sport and left little value to the regular season by comparison.

By contrast, college football TV revenue is still largely about the regular season, which is important for the P5 because they have complete control over their regular season revenue. Therefore, a playoff system cannot be so large that it takes away the value of their regular season TV contracts. I think an 8-team playoff with P5 auto-bids enhances the value of the P5 regular season TV contracts because it turns their conference championship games into de facto playoff games. Once you get a playoff larger than that, then you likely start having diminishing returns.

I agree with most of this, save for one key point: There is a "relative" dynamic *within* the P5 that I think your narrative misses - the SEC and B1G status as the big kahunas within the P5. And in that regard, I think a 5-1-2 system would have a significant leveling effect within the P5, narrowing that money/power/status gap between those two and the other three. And the SEC and B1G are unlikely to want that to happen.

That's because 5-1-2 would make all P5 CCGs playoff games, thus increasing the value of the PAC/B12/ACC games relative to the SEC and B1G games (the latter two already have massive value). Also, with Notre Dame likely to get a playoff spot many years, and the G5 "hoovering up" an autobid, that leaves just one at-large spot in many years. So with each P5 basically getting a single playoff team, that will level-out the power within the P5, raising the PAC/ACC/B12 relative to the SEC and B1G. Currently, under the four team model, that doesn't happen, because even though the four-team playoffs basically limits each conference to at most one playoff spot, there is the compensating factor of unlimited places in the still-prestigious NY6, and the SEC and B1G have been able to flex their muscles by getting many more teams in the NY6, enhancing their status. But with 5-1-2, the remaining bowls will be so denigrated in status that this status-enhancing mechanism will no longer exist.

Also, the regular seasons of each P5, which right now differ markedly in importance and which is one reason the SEC and B1G get much more media money, will now be essentially the same. A Wake Forest vs NC State game or a Washington State vs Arizona State game will have the same national implications as Iowa vs Michigan or LSU vs South Carolina. They will all just funnel in to the same thing, the respective CCG that will determine the playoff spot.

It's little wonder therefore that the PAC and AAC, Scott and Aresco, have been so gung-ho about 5-1-2. This system, if history is any guide, would basically shore up the PAC, eliminating the fade-out it has experienced the past 10 years, and realize Aresco's P6 agenda, at least in a defacto sense.

But for the SEC and B1G, 5-1-2 is a *relatively* losing proposition compared to the current CFP. The value of their regular seasons, and post-seasons, and commensurate dominant status, will almost surely decline relative to that of the other P5. The only way I see out of that is a 12-team system, with four additional at-large spots.

(05-04-2021 08:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 03:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 02:37 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 01:20 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 01:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I’ve said this before and I will say it again. The 5-1-2 is still alive because the G5 don’t have an incentive to back the 12 team model. They know too well that there will be only one G5 representative in the playoff whether it’s 5-1-2 or 5-1-6. And under the 5-1-6, the G5 team will not get a bye. Why would they support the 12 team model? The ACC won’t see much benefit either and the article states “New ACC commissioner Jim Phillips says it is “premature” to assume the playoff will expand.”

ND and the SEC will prefer the 5-1-6 over the 5-1-2 in my opinion. It’ll be interesting to watch how this unfolds.

I've an$wered thi$ before and I will an$wer it again. The rea$on they will end up moving to a 5-1-6 model i$ that it will generate con$iderably more money by having 4 more game$ to $ell to the network($) that broadca$t them. The majority of that money will obviou$ly go to the conference$ and team$ that participate in them, but a portion will be pa$$ed along to everybody el$e, re$ulting in a higher overall payout. Plu$, having a guaranteed repre$entative i$ far better than the G5 ha$ managed to do throughout the entirety of the CFP to date, $o having to play in the extra game i$ $TILL better than being $y$tematically excluded every year.

U$FFan

Of course, money is good. But if money is everything, why not go wirh the 16 playoff? More games and more $$$. The SI article does not seem to indicate the 12 team playoff is a done deal.

Well, as I always remind people here, it's not just about the money in an absolute sense.

It's about the money SPLIT in a relative sense.

As the SI article noted, the current CFP revenue split is around 80/20 between the P5 and G5. A playoff system that would turn that into, say, a 70/30 split may not be worth it for the P5 even if the P5 might actually make more absolute dollars under that system. The evolutionary need to preserve *relative* power is wildly underrated by people in general.

Also, you have to look at revenue holistically. There's no doubt that a larger college football playoff system would make more money by itself. However, what the P5 do NOT want to see happen is what we now see with the NCAA Tournament. In basketball, the NCAA Tournament has essentially hoovered up all of the TV revenue for that sport and left little value to the regular season by comparison.

By contrast, college football TV revenue is still largely about the regular season, which is important for the P5 because they have complete control over their regular season revenue. Therefore, a playoff system cannot be so large that it takes away the value of their regular season TV contracts. I think an 8-team playoff with P5 auto-bids enhances the value of the P5 regular season TV contracts because it turns their conference championship games into de facto playoff games. Once you get a playoff larger than that, then you likely start having diminishing returns.

I agree with most of this, save for one key point: There is a "relative" dynamic *within* the P5 that I think your narrative misses - the SEC and B1G status as the big kahunas within the P5. And in that regard, I think a 5-1-2 system would have a significant leveling effect within the P5, narrowing that money/power/status gap between those two and the other three. And the SEC and B1G are unlikely to want that to happen.

That's because 5-1-2 would make all P5 CCGs playoff games, thus increasing the value of the PAC/B12/ACC games relative to the SEC and B1G games (the latter two already have massive value). Also, with Notre Dame likely to get a playoff spot many years, and the G5 "hoovering up" an autobid, that leaves just one at-large spot in many years. So with each P5 basically getting a single playoff team, that will level-out the power within the P5, raising the PAC/ACC/B12 relative to the SEC and B1G. Currently, under the four team model, that doesn't happen, because even though the four-team playoffs basically limits each conference to at most one playoff spot, there is the compensating factor of unlimited places in the still-prestigious NY6, and the SEC and B1G have been able to flex their muscles by getting many more teams in the NY6, enhancing their status. But with 5-1-2, the remaining bowls will be so denigrated in status that this status-enhancing mechanism will no longer exist.

Also, the regular seasons of each P5, which right now differ markedly in importance and which is one reason the SEC and B1G get much more media money, will now be essentially the same. A Wake Forest vs NC State game or a Washington State vs Arizona State game will have the same national implications as Iowa vs Michigan or LSU vs South Carolina. They will all just funnel in to the same thing, the respective CCG that will determine the playoff spot.

It's little wonder therefore that the PAC and AAC, Scott and Aresco, have been so gung-ho about 5-1-2. This system, if history is any guide, would basically shore up the PAC, eliminating the fade-out it has experienced the past 10 years, and realize Aresco's P6 agenda, at least in a defacto sense.

But for the SEC and B1G, 5-1-2 is a *relatively* losing proposition compared to the current CFP. The value of their regular seasons, and post-seasons, and commensurate dominant status, will almost surely decline relative to that of the other P5. The only way I see out of that is a 12-team system, with four additional at-large spots.

I think the SEC might think that way. The league gets so much deference from the committee and general public that whatever system maximizes their playoff bids is what matters.

However, I disagree about the Big Ten. The league has long cared about the treatment of its conference champion specifically. It's a vestige of the days when getting to the Rose Bowl was the unambiguous goal for winning the league. The conference was legitimately miffed when a non-conference champ Ohio State made it into the playoff instead of Big Ten champ Penn State in 2016. Even though *a* Big Ten team made it to the playoff, it was an indication that the committee only respects Ohio State (who happens to play in the Big Ten) as opposed to the Big Ten overall. You could say the same thing about the ACC - they shouldn't be too comfortable with their CFP playoff berths because that's all a reflection of how much respect Clemson specifically has as opposed to the ACC itself.

Plus, the Big Ten has had the experience of being left out of the CFP multiple times already. They have experienced the damage that causes to the league's television ratings and national interest in those years. The SEC has enough capital that shooting the moon on the upside is a decent bet for them. I can't say the same for the Big Ten - this next playoff expansion is going to be all about downside protection for them (as I think it will be for the other non-SEC P5 conferences, too).

(05-04-2021 08:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-04-2021 08:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 03:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 02:37 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 01:20 PM)usffan Wrote:  I've an$wered thi$ before and I will an$wer it again. The rea$on they will end up moving to a 5-1-6 model i$ that it will generate con$iderably more money by having 4 more game$ to $ell to the network($) that broadca$t them. The majority of that money will obviou$ly go to the conference$ and team$ that participate in them, but a portion will be pa$$ed along to everybody el$e, re$ulting in a higher overall payout. Plu$, having a guaranteed repre$entative i$ far better than the G5 ha$ managed to do throughout the entirety of the CFP to date, $o having to play in the extra game i$ $TILL better than being $y$tematically excluded every year.

U$FFan

Of course, money is good. But if money is everything, why not go wirh the 16 playoff? More games and more $$$. The SI article does not seem to indicate the 12 team playoff is a done deal.

Well, as I always remind people here, it's not just about the money in an absolute sense.

It's about the money SPLIT in a relative sense.

As the SI article noted, the current CFP revenue split is around 80/20 between the P5 and G5. A playoff system that would turn that into, say, a 70/30 split may not be worth it for the P5 even if the P5 might actually make more absolute dollars under that system. The evolutionary need to preserve *relative* power is wildly underrated by people in general.

Also, you have to look at revenue holistically. There's no doubt that a larger college football playoff system would make more money by itself. However, what the P5 do NOT want to see happen is what we now see with the NCAA Tournament. In basketball, the NCAA Tournament has essentially hoovered up all of the TV revenue for that sport and left little value to the regular season by comparison.

By contrast, college football TV revenue is still largely about the regular season, which is important for the P5 because they have complete control over their regular season revenue. Therefore, a playoff system cannot be so large that it takes away the value of their regular season TV contracts. I think an 8-team playoff with P5 auto-bids enhances the value of the P5 regular season TV contracts because it turns their conference championship games into de facto playoff games. Once you get a playoff larger than that, then you likely start having diminishing returns.

I agree with most of this, save for one key point: There is a "relative" dynamic *within* the P5 that I think your narrative misses - the SEC and B1G status as the big kahunas within the P5. And in that regard, I think a 5-1-2 system would have a significant leveling effect within the P5, narrowing that money/power/status gap between those two and the other three. And the SEC and B1G are unlikely to want that to happen.

That's because 5-1-2 would make all P5 CCGs playoff games, thus increasing the value of the PAC/B12/ACC games relative to the SEC and B1G games (the latter two already have massive value). Also, with Notre Dame likely to get a playoff spot many years, and the G5 "hoovering up" an autobid, that leaves just one at-large spot in many years. So with each P5 basically getting a single playoff team, that will level-out the power within the P5, raising the PAC/ACC/B12 relative to the SEC and B1G. Currently, under the four team model, that doesn't happen, because even though the four-team playoffs basically limits each conference to at most one playoff spot, there is the compensating factor of unlimited places in the still-prestigious NY6, and the SEC and B1G have been able to flex their muscles by getting many more teams in the NY6, enhancing their status. But with 5-1-2, the remaining bowls will be so denigrated in status that this status-enhancing mechanism will no longer exist.

Also, the regular seasons of each P5, which right now differ markedly in importance and which is one reason the SEC and B1G get much more media money, will now be essentially the same. A Wake Forest vs NC State game or a Washington State vs Arizona State game will have the same national implications as Iowa vs Michigan or LSU vs South Carolina. They will all just funnel in to the same thing, the respective CCG that will determine the playoff spot.

It's little wonder therefore that the PAC and AAC, Scott and Aresco, have been so gung-ho about 5-1-2. This system, if history is any guide, would basically shore up the PAC, eliminating the fade-out it has experienced the past 10 years, and realize Aresco's P6 agenda, at least in a defacto sense.

But for the SEC and B1G, 5-1-2 is a *relatively* losing proposition compared to the current CFP. The value of their regular seasons, and post-seasons, and commensurate dominant status, will almost surely decline relative to that of the other P5. The only way I see out of that is a 12-team system, with four additional at-large spots.

I think the SEC might think that way. The league gets so much deference from the committee and general public that whatever system maximizes their playoff bids is what matters.

However, I disagree about the Big Ten. The league has long cared about the treatment of its conference champion specifically. It's a vestige of the days when getting to the Rose Bowl was the unambiguous goal for winning the league. The conference was legitimately miffed when a non-conference champ Ohio State made it into the playoff instead of Big Ten champ Penn State in 2016. Even though *a* Big Ten team made it to the playoff, it was an indication that the committee only respects Ohio State (who happens to play in the Big Ten) as opposed to the Big Ten overall. You could say the same thing about the ACC - they shouldn't be too comfortable with their CFP playoff berths because that's all a reflection of how much respect Clemson specifically has as opposed to the ACC itself.

Plus, the Big Ten has had the experience of being left out of the CFP multiple times already. They have experienced the damage that causes to the league's television ratings and national interest in those years. The SEC has enough capital that shooting the moon on the upside is a decent bet for them. I can't say the same for the Big Ten - this next playoff expansion is going to be all about downside protection for them (as I think it will be for the other non-SEC P5 conferences, too).

100% agree about Clemson vs. the ACC.

The ACC seems to thrive when they have one dominant program. They have not been able to obtain that multi team national strength on a regular basis.

(05-04-2021 07:36 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think college basketball regular season is definitely hurt by the torunament. There are die hards who care regardless and the regular season is good for casual viewing if you are sitting looking for something, but there really is no must watch games. You can have the #1 and #2 teams in the country playing and it just doesn't feel like there are any stakes to me half the time (you are both going to the torunament as high seeds).

This is what I will personally miss with a bigger playoff (4 is already worse than 2, but not too big to end this completely). I love watching a team playing (whom I might have no otherwise interest in) knowing that they have to win to stay in the national title chase. Lose any game, they leave everything up to chance. It creates a lot of early/mid-season very big games when otherwise the stakes would feel far less.

I get the issues with the system, but this is what made me love the sport (and not just my own team) and it is very sad to see the transformation to be just like every other sport. I will still love it, but a piece of it is dying to me.

It's the underlying influences behind the prevailing thoughts that concerns me the most. Championships should be about who has the best team. With the CFP it seems sometimes to be about which 4 solid teams gain us the most viewers. So maximizing profits can conflict with fairly deciding a champion. And there is this growing socialist sentiment that no matter what you have done or failed to do in order to get in that every school who gets close deserves to be in and this is more about fan attitudes than team ability. Inclusion is in my mind a word anathema to the purposes of allowing a champion to win it on the field. I want to see teams that earned the right to play by being their conference's champion play. But I want those schools to have had better seasons than being the tallest midget in a weak conference to get into the playoffs. And quietly in the back of my mind is the relationship between the gambling industry and the NFL where the house wins 3/4ths of the time more or less. Gambling is always looking for angles to control the odds on outcomes. More teams in make injuries a wild card, with targeting it makes players ejections a wild card, and it provides match ups in which fans make big wrong assumptions.

We don't often truly consider the motivations behind these pushes. But gambling and TV ratings feed off of one another. And they can use the angle of "inclusion" for their purposes as long as it is part of the popular mantra of society. Championships are about winning, not do-overs, mulligans, or public sentiment, and they really shouldn't be about who garners the largest market share either!

5-1-6 seems to me to be the direction the wind is blowing:

Elite P5 Conferences can load up on multiple bids

The weaker P5 Conferences get guaranteed inclusion

The G5 get a seat at the table

The P5 also like the fact that they are likely going to make the G5 play on the road at on on campus site rather than a neutral venue.

I’ll say this, one thing I’d like to see is the committee replaced with a larger group of say 60 voters so that power is so highly concentrated among that Group of 12.

I think they should all be required to submit their ballots blindly, so as the voters aren’t influenced by each other.

The other thing I want is complete transparency. Each voter’s ballot should be accessible online.

(05-04-2021 07:36 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think college basketball regular season is definitely hurt by the torunament. There are die hards who care regardless and the regular season is good for casual viewing if you are sitting looking for something, but there really is no must watch games.

There's no causation there. In the old days when the NCAA only permitted conference champs and indies in the NCAA tournament, regular season games were still not must-see-TV. The reason is that, compared to football, there are far more games. You might as well be asking why every regular season baseball game isn't a must-see event.

Regular season CBB games have *more* at stake in the context of the 64+ team tournament, especially in February when teams are trying to play their way into an at-large spot or trying to avoid falling out of contention for one. All of those February games now on ESPN or Fox would be completely meaningless if only conference tournament champs made the NCAA tournament