Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
Author Message
JamesTKirk Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 63
Joined: Mar 2021
Reputation: 3
I Root For: the underdog
Location:
Post: #61
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 02:50 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 02:43 PM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 02:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The top 4 ought to be the top 4 regardless of whether they're a conference champ, independent, or conference runner-up.

Disagree, Frank, and here's why:

The goal should be to put the most competitive ball games possible on people's TV screens.

Competitive games get a lot more viewership, and generate a lot more revenue for the networks, conferences, and teams.

Giving a bye to the Alabamas, Ohio States, Oklahomas, and Clemsons doesn't make the games more competitive.

It does the exact opposite - - it makes them less competitive.

The entire reason why the whole nation is up in arms about wanting to ditch the current format is that they're sick of watching the same few teams dominate the CFP year after year after year.

.

This may seem counter-intuitive, but it will make a certain amount of sense if you read it with an open-mind:


If the success of the College Football Playoffs, in terms of not just total viewers, but of viewers who watch the games most of the way through hinges on making the games as competitive as possible:

The most effective way to maximize the competitiveness of the games in a 12-team CFP would be to give the first round byes (and home field advantage) to the four lowest-ranked teams.

The intent would be to even the playing field to the extent possible.

Frankly, the lowest-ranked teams would still be likely to be blown out, but at least they might be able to keep their games interesting through much of the first half.

There's also another rationale to doing everything possible to even the playing field:

It would force the elite teams to play that harder and give that much better of a performance if they want to win the national championship.

That's what everybody wants to see. Nobody wants to watch the elite teams win the championship in a cakewalk.

The lowest-ranked teams get a bye over the highest ranked teams simply for entertainment purposes???

I'm not even sure how to respond to this other than the last thing that we need to see is teams actually *tank* games in order to get the perverse advantage of having to play fewer games by being lower ranked. That would be pretty awful.

My response is this:

It seems to me that you are under-estimating how much stronger the top 4 teams are than the bottom 4 teams are.

Would you really expect Alabama to lose to Coastal Carolina just because Coastal gets a first round bye and plays the game on their home field?

I think that Alabama still wins that game in a cake walk, but Coastal might be able to score a field goal in the first half and hold 'Bama to 20 first half points before being annihilated in the second half.

When it comes to "tanking" games, I believe the most effective way to "tank" a game is to let a #1 Alabama play a #8 Cincinnati on its home field after a first round bye.

'Bama blows out Cincinnati in the first quarter of that game, and 10 million TV sets are switched to another channel before halftime.
06-10-2021 02:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JamesTKirk Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 63
Joined: Mar 2021
Reputation: 3
I Root For: the underdog
Location:
Post: #62
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 02:50 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 02:43 PM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 02:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The top 4 ought to be the top 4 regardless of whether they're a conference champ, independent, or conference runner-up.

Disagree, Frank, and here's why:

The goal should be to put the most competitive ball games possible on people's TV screens.

Competitive games get a lot more viewership, and generate a lot more revenue for the networks, conferences, and teams.

Giving a bye to the Alabamas, Ohio States, Oklahomas, and Clemsons doesn't make the games more competitive.

It does the exact opposite - - it makes them less competitive.

The entire reason why the whole nation is up in arms about wanting to ditch the current format is that they're sick of watching the same few teams dominate the CFP year after year after year.

.

This may seem counter-intuitive, but it will make a certain amount of sense if you read it with an open-mind:


If the success of the College Football Playoffs, in terms of not just total viewers, but of viewers who watch the games most of the way through hinges on making the games as competitive as possible:

The most effective way to maximize the competitiveness of the games in a 12-team CFP would be to give the first round byes (and home field advantage) to the four lowest-ranked teams.

The intent would be to even the playing field to the extent possible.

Frankly, the lowest-ranked teams would still be likely to be blown out, but at least they might be able to keep their games interesting through much of the first half.

There's also another rationale to doing everything possible to even the playing field:

It would force the elite teams to play that harder and give that much better of a performance if they want to win the national championship.

That's what everybody wants to see. Nobody wants to watch the elite teams win the championship in a cakewalk.

The lowest-ranked teams get a bye over the highest ranked teams simply for entertainment purposes???

I'm not even sure how to respond to this other than the last thing that we need to see is teams actually *tank* games in order to get the perverse advantage of having to play fewer games by being lower ranked. That would be pretty awful.

My response is this:

It seems to me that you are under-estimating how much stronger the top 4 teams are than the bottom 4 teams are.

Would you really expect Alabama to lose to Coastal Carolina just because Coastal gets a first round bye and plays the game on their home field?

I think that Alabama still wins that game in a cake walk, but Coastal might be able to score a field goal in the first half and hold 'Bama to 20 first half points before being annihilated in the second half.

When it comes to "tanking" games, I believe the most effective way to "tank" a game is to let a #1 Alabama play a #8 Cincinnati on its home field after a first round bye.

'Bama blows out Cincinnati in the first quarter of that game, and 10 million TV sets are switched to another channel before halftime.


But, flip it around, and have Alabama play Cincinnati on the Bearcat's home field after they had a first round bye, and Cincinnati might be able to make it into the second-half down by only two touchdowns, before they get blown out in the second half.
(This post was last modified: 06-10-2021 03:04 PM by JamesTKirk.)
06-10-2021 02:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Blue_Trombone Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,789
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 182
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location:
Post: #63
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
Y'all, "6 Highest rated conference champions" is a way to do the "Power 5 + 1 Gang of 5" in a legalese way to prevent anticompetitive lawsuits (since technically all conferences are equal partners in the FBS, why do these 5 get 5 bids but these 5 get only 1? It's a way to circumvent any of those potential issues)
06-10-2021 02:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 17,903
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 835
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #64
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 02:48 PM)usffan Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 02:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  My biggest critique would be---If your going to create a whole additional round by adding that jump from 8 to 12---why not take full advantage of the additional round by making it 16 total teams?

We addressed this before. There's a finite window, and they want to maximize the money they're going to get by televising these games. 4 windows - Thursday night, Saturday noon, Saturday 3:30, Saturday 8 pm. If you go to 8 games, they'll start to cannibalize the ratings from one another. 4 games in a weekend is the theoretical max you could get, which is why I thought 12 was going to be the number all along...

USFFan

Right, there are only so many people who are going to watch these games. If they play 6 playoff games in one day, 2 in each time slot, the total audience isn't going to be much more, and might not be more at all, then the total audience if they play one game in each time slot.
06-10-2021 03:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 15,036
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 553
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #65
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
It's astonishing to me ND signed off on a plan where they were permanently disadvantaged.....unless
06-10-2021 03:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,906
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 669
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #66
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 02:59 PM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 02:50 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 02:43 PM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 02:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The top 4 ought to be the top 4 regardless of whether they're a conference champ, independent, or conference runner-up.

Disagree, Frank, and here's why:

The goal should be to put the most competitive ball games possible on people's TV screens.

Competitive games get a lot more viewership, and generate a lot more revenue for the networks, conferences, and teams.

Giving a bye to the Alabamas, Ohio States, Oklahomas, and Clemsons doesn't make the games more competitive.

It does the exact opposite - - it makes them less competitive.

The entire reason why the whole nation is up in arms about wanting to ditch the current format is that they're sick of watching the same few teams dominate the CFP year after year after year.

.

This may seem counter-intuitive, but it will make a certain amount of sense if you read it with an open-mind:


If the success of the College Football Playoffs, in terms of not just total viewers, but of viewers who watch the games most of the way through hinges on making the games as competitive as possible:

The most effective way to maximize the competitiveness of the games in a 12-team CFP would be to give the first round byes (and home field advantage) to the four lowest-ranked teams.

The intent would be to even the playing field to the extent possible.

Frankly, the lowest-ranked teams would still be likely to be blown out, but at least they might be able to keep their games interesting through much of the first half.

There's also another rationale to doing everything possible to even the playing field:

It would force the elite teams to play that harder and give that much better of a performance if they want to win the national championship.

That's what everybody wants to see. Nobody wants to watch the elite teams win the championship in a cakewalk.

The lowest-ranked teams get a bye over the highest ranked teams simply for entertainment purposes???

I'm not even sure how to respond to this other than the last thing that we need to see is teams actually *tank* games in order to get the perverse advantage of having to play fewer games by being lower ranked. That would be pretty awful.

My response is this:

It seems to me that you are under-estimating how much stronger the top 4 teams are than the bottom 4 teams are.

Would you really expect Alabama to lose to Coastal Carolina just because Coastal gets a first round bye and plays the game on their home field?

I think that Alabama still wins that game in a cake walk, but Coastal might be able to score a field goal in the first half and hold 'Bama to 20 first half points before being annihilated in the second half.

When it comes to "tanking" games, I believe the most effective way to "tank" a game is to let a #1 Alabama play a #8 Cincinnati on its home field after a first round bye.

'Bama blows out Cincinnati in the first quarter of that game, and 10 million TV sets are switched to another channel before halftime.

I'm not underestimating how good the top 4 teams are at all. That's the entire reason why they shouldn't be subjected to even the *potential* of a first round upset (however unlikely that might be) when they *earned* the right to have an advantage through the course of a season.

I mean, sure, you could put #1 Alabama vs. #2 Clemson in the first round and that particular round would be a whole lot more interesting than Bama vs. Coastal Carolina... but that would be terribly awful for the overall system when you get to the actual championship round. You're putting the proverbial cart before the horse here.

By your logic, the top 4 seeds of the NCAA Tournament should be playing in the extra First Four games because that would make that round more interesting and they would be so heavily favored, anyway. That makes absolutely no sense from a competitive standpoint and, even though the money and TV interests rule the roost, this is still a *competition* where the on-the-field goal is to produce the best championship game (not just the best first round game).
06-10-2021 03:09 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
IWokeUpLikeThis Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,773
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 499
I Root For: NIU, Chicago St
Location: South Side
Post: #67
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
jedclampett’s sock puppet is off its meds.
06-10-2021 03:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crayton Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 742
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 67
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #68
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 02:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 02:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m curious what the payout model will be. I assume your conference gets extra money for each at-large selection, but how much money?

What happens in a season like 2020, when the PAC 12 is left out? Do they not receive any playoff money or do they get the equivalent of a G5?

Given how the proposal is worded and constructed (looks like the anti-trust lawyers had some input)---I have to think every champ autobid has to pay the same amount and every wildcard has to pay the same amount. There must be another mechanism they will use to make sure the P5 get the lions share---and that may be simply sheer weight of numbers. The P5 will almost surely fill the vast majority of the bracket every year.

My guess is that there will still be Bowl payouts siphoned to those teams. Sugar will pay a premium to get first crack at the SEC Champ, and that money won't be split evenly. Likely there will be 1 or 2 non-playoff "NY6" Bowls to catch a low-ranking "Power" Champ.

But, maybe there won't be such a Rube-Goldberg financial device. "Lions' share" money will be divided amongst the 6 "Champs" and then +$ for every appearance (at large or otherwise) a conference musters. A baseline will be given to all 10 conferences. They could pay-out across a couple years so if the Pac-12 misses it won't fall off a cliff, financially.
06-10-2021 03:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crayton Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 742
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 67
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #69
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 02:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 02:18 PM)esayem Wrote:  I’m surprised they’re not maximizing conference championship games. Essentially the only drama is to spoil a team’s season and not to guarantee anything.

What if the Pac, ACC, and American all suffer upsets to unranked teams in the CCG? I guess the drama comes from the potential champs of the MWC, MAC, C-USA, and Sun Belt vs the unranked champs from the aforementioned leagues.

Wow! What a headache ranking a bunch of unranked teams!

Yup. Its clear they avoided giving specific conference auto-bids for two reasons.

1) Avoid anti-trust issues.

2) Avoid a low or unranked team making the playoff by virtue of a CCG upset.

Frankly---I like the idea of a team coming out of nowhere to make the playoff via a CCG upset. I understand the logic behind prevention that from happening---but to me---it takes away a lot of the drama that makes athletic competition so interesting.

Since 2014, how many P5 division champs were ranked behind members of 2 G5 conferences going into their CCGs?
06-10-2021 03:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wahoowa84 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 980
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 114
I Root For: UVa
Location:
Post: #70
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 03:07 PM)solohawks Wrote:  It's astonishing to me ND signed off on a plan where they were permanently disadvantaged.....unless
This is the most intriguing aspect of the proposal. Having CCG winners seeded 1-4 ensures geographic and conference diversity in the quarterfinal round. Maybe they were worried about too many teams from one region in the quarterfinals hurting the ratings.
06-10-2021 03:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,817
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 69
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #71
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 03:27 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 03:07 PM)solohawks Wrote:  It's astonishing to me ND signed off on a plan where they were permanently disadvantaged.....unless
This is the most intriguing aspect of the proposal. Having CCG winners seeded 1-4 ensures geographic and conference diversity in the quarterfinal round. Maybe they were worried about too many teams from one region in the quarterfinals hurting the ratings.

What would it take for a G5 program to have a crack at a first round bye?

Finish #5 or #6 in the CFP standings? Lower possibly behind a glut of SEC teams? A staff at a Houston or UCF type program could pitch a bye argument in living rooms while Eastern Michigan has a better shot than Notre Dame of getting a bye.
06-10-2021 03:35 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,906
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 669
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #72
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 03:27 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 03:07 PM)solohawks Wrote:  It's astonishing to me ND signed off on a plan where they were permanently disadvantaged.....unless
This is the most intriguing aspect of the proposal. Having CCG winners seeded 1-4 ensures geographic and conference diversity in the quarterfinal round. Maybe they were worried about too many teams from one region in the quarterfinals hurting the ratings.

The only thing that I can think of here is that they're using the bowls as quarterfinals and they're essentially maximizing some semblance of tie-ins there (e.g. the Rose Bowl would always get a top 4 Big Ten or Pac-12 champ with the higher ranked going to the Rose if both leagues are in the top 4). Maybe ND sees this as similar to the current Contract Bowl system or BCS AQ system and that's a concession on their part.

Otherwise, from a competitive standpoint, I believe that a top 4 Notre Dame (or any other school) should get a top 4 seed just as they would in the current system. Frankly, it would be even more important in the new system since a bye would now be involved.
(This post was last modified: 06-10-2021 03:36 PM by Frank the Tank.)
06-10-2021 03:36 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eggszecutor Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 31
Joined: Jun 2020
Reputation: 19
I Root For: Nebraska
Location:
Post: #73
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
I like the guarantee of the four byes going to the top-rated conference champions. Those schools have to play an extra game (their conference title game), so they earn the bye.

I think Notre Dame is okay with this since they won't be playing a conference title game as an independent. They currently play one less game than conference champions do. Their "conference title game"/13th game could easily be a home game EACH YEAR hosting the first round. Wonder if they keep the gate receipts? AND, does NBC get to broadcast this game? What does that mean for their TV contract?

Sounds like a win-win for them all around. It would have been unfair if they didn't have to play in a conference title game and were able to be awarded a 1st round bye.
(This post was last modified: 06-10-2021 03:52 PM by Eggszecutor.)
06-10-2021 03:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 15,036
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 553
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #74
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 03:44 PM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  I like the guarantee of the four byes going to the top-rated conference champions. Those schools have to play an extra game (their conference title game), so they earn the bye. I think Notre Dame is okay with this since they won't be playing a conference title game as an independent. Their "conference title game"/13th game could easily be a home game EACH YEAR hosting the first round. Sounds like a win-win for them all around.

That must be it

Well done I hadn't even thought of that
06-10-2021 03:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
usffan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,739
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 617
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #75
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 03:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 03:27 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 03:07 PM)solohawks Wrote:  It's astonishing to me ND signed off on a plan where they were permanently disadvantaged.....unless
This is the most intriguing aspect of the proposal. Having CCG winners seeded 1-4 ensures geographic and conference diversity in the quarterfinal round. Maybe they were worried about too many teams from one region in the quarterfinals hurting the ratings.

The only thing that I can think of here is that they're using the bowls as quarterfinals and they're essentially maximizing some semblance of tie-ins there (e.g. the Rose Bowl would always get a top 4 Big Ten or Pac-12 champ with the higher ranked going to the Rose if both leagues are in the top 4). Maybe ND sees this as similar to the current Contract Bowl system or BCS AQ system and that's a concession on their part.

Otherwise, from a competitive standpoint, I believe that a top 4 Notre Dame (or any other school) should get a top 4 seed just as they would in the current system. Frankly, it would be even more important in the new system since a bye would now be involved.

This is where we have to seriously wait out the details. If, as Nicole Auerbach posted, the quarterfinals and semifinals will be hosted by the bowls (i.e. the NY6 bowls), that would seem to do away with the contract bowl relationships, which was the basis for the whole "Power 5." This wording also seems to leave open the prospect of one of the Autonomous 5 champs being left out (e.g. Oregon last year). That sure seems like a tough sell to me.

What I do think, though, is that this will accelerate the move to divisionless CCGs. I can't imagine conferences won't move heaven and earth to avoid a disaster such as 2018 Pitt going into the conference championship game at 7-5 simply to avoid the risk of them upsetting Clemson and then losing out on their champ going to a bowl. Divisionless they could have at least sent ranked 9-3 Syracuse to avoid that happening.

USFFan
06-10-2021 03:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RUScarlets Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,206
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #76
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
5-12 seems rather pointless. Why not just take 4 At-Large + Top 4 CC? It's clear that they don't want to throw away those mid December weekends for Army Navy or Heisman presentations. Talk about milking the cow.

Also, what about the 5 and 6 seeds that have to now play 14 games in the regular season (including a potential CCG for non-independents)? This is crazy demanding on the students and coaches. Just milk it away though so we can at least get some competitive second tier preliminary games.
(This post was last modified: 06-10-2021 03:54 PM by RUScarlets.)
06-10-2021 03:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
indianasniff Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,899
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Toledo
Location:
Post: #77
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
There is no reason for 6 at large teams. If you want a true championship there should be ALL conference champs and two at large

Top 4 byes

Next 4 host last 4
Last year would have looked like this

3 Clemson ACC
4 OSU B1G
10 Oklahoma Big 12
Ball State MAC
24 San Jose St MWC
25 Oregon PAC
1 Alabama SEC
12 Coastal Carolina Sunbelt
UAB CUSA
9 Cincinnati AAC

Based on the week 16 rankings
4 Notre Dame (BYE) and 5 Texas AM would be the two at large.
Byes
1 Alabama
2 Notre Dame AT LARGE
3 Clemson ACC
4 OSU B1G

5 Texas A&M host 54 Ball State
9 Cincinnati host 50 UAB
10 Oklahoma host 25 Oregon
12 Coastal Carolina host 24 San Jose St MWC
06-10-2021 03:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,817
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 69
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #78
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 03:48 PM)solohawks Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 03:44 PM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  I like the guarantee of the four byes going to the top-rated conference champions. Those schools have to play an extra game (their conference title game), so they earn the bye. I think Notre Dame is okay with this since they won't be playing a conference title game as an independent. Their "conference title game"/13th game could easily be a home game EACH YEAR hosting the first round. Sounds like a win-win for them all around.

That must be it

Well done I hadn't even thought of that

They'll get a monster gate for hosting on campus and if you're paid bonuses for each appearance having the extra game fills the coffers. I think its about lining pockets. This is a money grab.
06-10-2021 03:57 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
usffan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,739
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 617
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #79
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 03:53 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  5-12 seems rather pointless. Why not just take 4 At-Large + Top 4 CC?

Is this a serious question?

Because the answer is pretty obvious...





They don't need to have 68 teams in March Madness, either, but it pays really well.

USFFan
06-10-2021 03:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,906
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 669
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #80
RE: CFP Recommendation: 6 conf. champs + 6 at-large
(06-10-2021 03:44 PM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  I like the guarantee of the four byes going to the top-rated conference champions. Those schools have to play an extra game (their conference title game), so they earn the bye.

I think Notre Dame is okay with this since they won't be playing a conference title game as an independent. They currently play one less game than conference champions do. Their "conference title game"/13th game could easily be a home game EACH YEAR hosting the first round. Wonder if they keep the gate receipts? AND, does NBC get to broadcast this game? What does that mean for their TV contract?

Sounds like a win-win for them all around. It would have been unfair if they didn't have to play in a conference title game and were able to be awarded a 1st round bye.

Huh - that's a good perspective if ND is essentially acknowledging that the 13th game that conference champs need to win is something that they don't need to deal with.

I can also understand the conference commissioners wanting to continue to provide higher incentives winning a conference championship. For instance, Alabama and Ohio State could have lost their respective CCGs last year and still might have ended up in the top 4. Heck, ND *did* lose their CCG and ended up in the top 4. Making the byes reserved for conference champs ensures that even the best teams aren't overlooking their CCGs.

On that basis, I'm warming up to it a bit more after my initial reaction.

That being said, there's no way that the playoff games are going to be included in any ND/NBC contract. The entire purpose of this exercise is to consolidate the whole CFP into a single massive contract driven by a negotiation with ESPN that prevents that contract from ever going to the open market.
06-10-2021 03:59 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: domer1978, JHS55, 18 Guest(s)


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