Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
cmufanatic Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,161
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 23
I Root For: cmu chippewas
Location: metro detroit
Post: #41
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(06-14-2021 08:31 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  
(06-12-2021 04:21 AM)cmufanatic Wrote:  Again, why are the G5 commissioners silent. This is the time to make their voice heard.

For what it's worth, Jon Steinbrecher has not been silent. He just hasn't been lighting his hair on fire. If you aren't at the table, you are on the menu, etc.



I notice that Steinbrecher isn't endorsing this or opposing this. As I read this, he is encouraged by the prospect of an expansion to 12 schools but thinks more can be done to make this better. Anyone read this differently?

Personally I think this is a weak statement. Appears he is trying not to ruffle any feathers and play neutral
06-14-2021 08:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,108
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #42
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(06-14-2021 08:31 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  I notice that Steinbrecher isn't endorsing this or opposing this. As I read this, he is encouraged by the prospect of an expansion to 12 schools but thinks more can be done to make this better. Anyone read this differently?

That's exactly the attitude I want to see the Commissioner of the MAC taking. You don't win things at the bargaining table from those who stand to benefit big-time from this by swooning at how great it is.

It's sometimes been observed that the selling price of the house may well be the price it was at when they heard your wife say she likes the kitchen.
(This post was last modified: 06-14-2021 11:52 AM by BruceMcF.)
06-14-2021 10:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bronco'14 Offline
WMU
*

Posts: 12,357
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 201
I Root For: WMU Broncos
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Post: #43
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
Are they going to announce the expansion or not? More talk, no action like always. 03-zzz
06-17-2021 01:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,108
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #44
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(06-17-2021 01:47 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Are they going to announce the expansion or not? More talk, no action like always. 03-zzz

Announce a multi-billion dollar media deal before the contracts have been negotiated and signed?

Yeah, no, not likely.

They haven't even sorted out the details of how the Bowls will be involved ... the Big Ten and PAC-12 were not in the organizing group, so obviously the plan was to get momentum for the plan BEFORE bringing it to those three to sort out how the Rose Bowl fits in, which will then allow working out how the Sugar and Orange Bowl fit in, which will then allow working out where the Fiesta, Cotton and Peach bowl fit in.

The announcement was now so they could start the ball rolling ... take the temperature of the reaction in the rest of Division 1 at the summer meeting, organize the negotiations for the contracts, etc.
06-17-2021 06:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
emu steve Online
Legend
*

Posts: 39,475
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 83
I Root For: EMU / MAC
Location: DMV - D.C. area
Post: #45
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(06-17-2021 06:51 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(06-17-2021 01:47 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Are they going to announce the expansion or not? More talk, no action like always. 03-zzz

Announce a multi-billion dollar media deal before the contracts have been negotiated and signed?

Yeah, no, not likely.

They haven't even sorted out the details of how the Bowls will be involved ... the Big Ten and PAC-12 were not in the organizing group, so obviously the plan was to get momentum for the plan BEFORE bringing it to those three to sort out how the Rose Bowl fits in, which will then allow working out how the Sugar and Orange Bowl fit in, which will then allow working out where the Fiesta, Cotton and Peach bowl fit in.

The announcement was now so they could start the ball rolling ... take the temperature of the reaction in the rest of Division 1 at the summer meeting, organize the negotiations for the contracts, etc.

Bruce, I think you got the temperature about right.

If I remember correctly, the proposed year (floated) was 2026. These things take time and they impinge on other bowls, television contracts, etc.

The devil will be in the details.

This isn't like selling a house and buying a new one, two fairly straightforward events.
06-18-2021 08:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,108
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #46
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
Ah, I got through a big pile of grading so I finally had the time to sit down and go through the CFP Press release. They are pretty explicit about the process ... this is just a committee proposal, it goes to the CFP Board of Managers to decide whether to approve feasibility studies and discussions with more stakeholders, if everything comes back positive, the earliest things can be decided is this coming Fall, and the current CFP will proceed this season and next in any event:
Quote:The next step in the process is for the 11-member management committee to review the recommendation at its upcoming meeting in Chicago June 17-18.

If the management committee endorses the 12-team proposal or reaches consensus on an alternative model or decides to retain the current format, it will forward a recommendation to the CFP board of managers, which will meet June 22 in Dallas.
... [lists the board ... a rep from each CFP conference and one from Notre Dame]

If the board authorizes this summer study period, the board would meet again in September to review the results of the summer assessments and also the input from presidents, athletics directors, coaches, student-athletes and others.

Any decision on changing the format would be made by the board.

... The date of implementation of a potential new format was not a part of the working group's proposal and would be a matter considered if any recommendation is approved by the board of managers. Hancock said the format will not change this year or next year. The current agreements for the four-team CFP extend through the 2025-26 season.

https://collegefootballplayoff.com/news/...posal.aspx
(This post was last modified: 06-18-2021 10:43 PM by BruceMcF.)
06-18-2021 10:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BobcatEngineer Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,460
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 396
I Root For: OHIO
Location: Maryland
Post: #47
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
Quote:The College Football Playoff Board of Managers on Tuesday approved a further study of expanding the CFP field to 12 teams, which could be approved at an unknown future date. That would triple the CFP field from the current four teams that have competed for the national championship since it started in 2014.

The rubber stamp to move evaluation forward was expected after the model created by the CFP working group was presented last week to the CFP Management Committee (10 FBS commissioners plus Notre Dame's athletic director).

"Having heard the presentation made today by the working group, along with the management committee that joined us for today's meeting, the board has authorized the management committee to begin a summer review phase that will engage other important voices in this matter," said CFP board chairman Mark Keenum, the president of Mississippi State, in a statement. "These include many people on our campuses. ... We have relationships with the bowls and a broadcast partner with whom we will want to consult to explore the feasibility of the 12-team proposal. This too will happen during this summer study period.

Sounds like the next meeting is slated for September.

CBS Sports
06-22-2021 12:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #48
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
They have no answer yet as to what the 4 conference champs who do not make the CFP are going to do.

What about an access bowl for the 7th and 8th rated conference champion? That would secure at least an access bowl for a MAC team that finished with 2 losses or less. It would also provide more downside protection for any of the P5 champ should they not make the Top 6 ranking.

The 12 team proposed set up solves the problem the MAC has faced as it relates to giving its very best all-time teams a chance to play for a title but there are other teams that are access bowl worthy.
06-28-2021 10:53 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
emu steve Online
Legend
*

Posts: 39,475
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 83
I Root For: EMU / MAC
Location: DMV - D.C. area
Post: #49
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(06-28-2021 10:53 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  They have no answer yet as to what the 4 conference champs who do not make the CFP are going to do.

What about an access bowl for the 7th and 8th rated conference champion? That would secure at least an access bowl for a MAC team that finished with 2 losses or less. It would also provide more downside protection for any of the P5 champ should they not make the Top 6 ranking.

The 12 team proposed set up solves the problem the MAC has faced as it relates to giving its very best all-time teams a chance to play for a title but there are other teams that are access bowl worthy.

Not sure I completely follow you, but I'm thinking...

Top 5 ranked P5 teams (conference champs) get an automatic invite.

Top ranked G5 champ gets an automatic invite.

The next highest ranked P5 team gets an at-large invite. (now up to 7 bids).

Next, if another G5 team is ranked (fill in the blank) they get an at large bid.

The remaining bids are filled like the NCAA MBB tourney by a committee.

Now, can the next two G5 conference champions, not selected above, get an invite to play in an connected bowl game.

The committee needs to see the teams 1 - 12 with 1 -4 receiving 1st round byes.

Would like to see a min. of 3 G5 teams playing in either the CFP or a special bowl of the next best G5 teams. 3 or 4 G5 in this CFP + G5 bowl would give the MAC a good shot at CFP or the special bowl game, marketed as a companion bowl.

The idea being that all P5 champs play in CFP and as many as possible G5 play in the CFP or a special bowl game or two.
(This post was last modified: 06-28-2021 12:07 PM by emu steve.)
06-28-2021 12:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,108
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #50
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(06-28-2021 10:53 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  They have no answer yet as to what the 4 conference champs who do not make the CFP are going to do.

Nor are they likely to have any answer different from today.

(06-28-2021 12:04 PM)emu steve Wrote:  ... Not sure I completely follow you, but I'm thinking...

Top 5 ranked P5 teams (conference champs) get an automatic invite.

Top ranked G5 champ gets an automatic invite.

The next highest ranked P5 team gets an at-large invite. (now up to 7 bids).

Next, if another G5 team is ranked (fill in the blank) they get an at large bid.

The remaining bids are filled like the NCAA MBB tourney by a committee.

If they are deliberately not specifying the 5 P5 schools and one of the rest, and if the PAC-12 (outgoing) commissioner got shot down when he proposed that amendment, they definitely are not going to carve out a special G5 at-large place.

Whether it would be nice or not is a different question to whether it would increase or reduce the amount that ESPN will pay for the rights.

The leverage that the Go5 conferences have is they have a veto on the contract change if it is an extension of the existing contract ... but trying to maintain their share of the pie as the pie grows is more likely to succeed than trying to get a revised system that cuts the media value and increases the risks of an antitrust lawsuit.
(This post was last modified: 06-29-2021 01:32 AM by BruceMcF.)
06-29-2021 01:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #51
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(06-29-2021 01:28 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(06-28-2021 10:53 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  They have no answer yet as to what the 4 conference champs who do not make the CFP are going to do.

Nor are they likely to have any answer different from today.

What's proposed is an 11 game format, with 4 conference champs left out.

What I'm proposing is making it a 12 game format which pits the two highest champs left out. This makes it improbable that and P5 champ would be left outside without at least an access bowl.

I'm not saying they are likely to do this but I'm saying I believe it would be a good idea and a replacement for the traditional access bowl of the G5.

To be perfectly honest competing for a national championship isn't realistic for a MAC program like it is for a few of the AAC. MAC doesn't pay enough to put up a Top 10 team on a sustained basis. But going 11-2 is realistic but not a playoff worthy type record. Access bowl can then be the answer for a good MAC season.
06-29-2021 12:31 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
emu steve Online
Legend
*

Posts: 39,475
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 83
I Root For: EMU / MAC
Location: DMV - D.C. area
Post: #52
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(06-29-2021 01:28 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(06-28-2021 10:53 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  They have no answer yet as to what the 4 conference champs who do not make the CFP are going to do.

Nor are they likely to have any answer different from today.

(06-28-2021 12:04 PM)emu steve Wrote:  ... Not sure I completely follow you, but I'm thinking...

Top 5 ranked P5 teams (conference champs) get an automatic invite.

Top ranked G5 champ gets an automatic invite.

The next highest ranked P5 team gets an at-large invite. (now up to 7 bids).

Next, if another G5 team is ranked (fill in the blank) they get an at large bid.

The remaining bids are filled like the NCAA MBB tourney by a committee.

If they are deliberately not specifying the 5 P5 schools and one of the rest, and if the PAC-12 (outgoing) commissioner got shot down when he proposed that amendment, they definitely are not going to carve out a special G5 at-large place.

Whether it would be nice or not is a different question to whether it would increase or reduce the amount that ESPN will pay for the rights.

The leverage that the Go5 conferences have is they have a veto on the contract change if it is an extension of the existing contract ... but trying to maintain their share of the pie as the pie grows is more likely to succeed than trying to get a revised system that cuts the media value and increases the risks of an antitrust lawsuit.

Good comments. Putting too many stipulations related to G5 conferences would diminish the value of the TV contract.

Best we can hope is for a bigger pie and maybe a larger % of that bigger pie.
06-29-2021 04:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,108
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #53
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(06-29-2021 12:31 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(06-29-2021 01:28 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(06-28-2021 10:53 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  They have no answer yet as to what the 4 conference champs who do not make the CFP are going to do.

Nor are they likely to have any answer different from today.

What's proposed is an 11 game format, with 4 conference champs left out.

What I'm proposing is making it a 12 game format which pits the two highest champs left out. This makes it improbable that and P5 champ would be left outside without at least an access bowl.

I'm not saying they are likely to do this but I'm saying I believe it would be a good idea and a replacement for the traditional access bowl of the G5.

They are going to view the guaranteed access for a minimum of one non-Contract Bowl conference into the championship as an upgrade to the access bowl ... which itself is far from a traditional concession, since it is only as old as the CFP itself. The previous BCS versions of access were qualified by ranking.

So also demanding a cross subsidy to generate a big money bowl for the seventh and eighth place conference champions seems to me like a bridge too far.

Quote: To be perfectly honest competing for a national championship isn't realistic for a MAC program like it is for a few of the AAC. MAC doesn't pay enough to put up a Top 10 team on a sustained basis. But going 11-2 is realistic but not a playoff worthy type record. Access bowl can then be the answer for a good MAC season.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have it to shoot for, I'm just saying that it's hard to see that version.

If the 2023 date slips because there are too many people with vetoes to satisfy everybody, then for a 2026 new contract negotiation, the version I can see as a possibility for getting up, even if not a likelihood, is if there is a semi-finals bowl rotation, they also have those bowls host the first three at-large out and the seventh conference champion in a suitably big money for "first out of the CFP" bowls. Since the PAC-12 proposal for a P5 autobid got knocked down, that might attract support from the PAC-12 as an airbag in case they crash to 7th conference champion in a year, and the PAC-12 might be able to talk the Big Ten into supporting it.

Even that is asking them to go from a minimum of one non-Contract-Conference spot set aside to a minimum of two. I am not opposed to making an ambit claim, even if it is a bit of a long odds ask, but asking for a minimum of three non-Contract-Conference spots to be set aside seems to me to be too big a jump for a single negotiation cycle.

And existing bowls with tie-ins with conferences that get pushed down by the two extra high value bowl games would cry foul, which is why even that would not likely to get up if the 12 team CFP is being pursued as an extension of the existing contract.
06-30-2021 12:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #54
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(06-30-2021 12:52 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(06-29-2021 12:31 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(06-29-2021 01:28 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(06-28-2021 10:53 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  They have no answer yet as to what the 4 conference champs who do not make the CFP are going to do.

Nor are they likely to have any answer different from today.

What's proposed is an 11 game format, with 4 conference champs left out.

What I'm proposing is making it a 12 game format which pits the two highest champs left out. This makes it improbable that and P5 champ would be left outside without at least an access bowl.

I'm not saying they are likely to do this but I'm saying I believe it would be a good idea and a replacement for the traditional access bowl of the G5.

They are going to view the guaranteed access for a minimum of one non-Contract Bowl conference into the championship as an upgrade to the access bowl ... which itself is far from a traditional concession, since it is only as old as the CFP itself. The previous BCS versions of access were qualified by ranking.

So also demanding a cross subsidy to generate a big money bowl for the seventh and eighth place conference champions seems to me like a bridge too far.

Quote: To be perfectly honest competing for a national championship isn't realistic for a MAC program like it is for a few of the AAC. MAC doesn't pay enough to put up a Top 10 team on a sustained basis. But going 11-2 is realistic but not a playoff worthy type record. Access bowl can then be the answer for a good MAC season.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have it to shoot for, I'm just saying that it's hard to see that version.

If the 2023 date slips because there are too many people with vetoes to satisfy everybody, then for a 2026 new contract negotiation, the version I can see as a possibility for getting up, even if not a likelihood, is if there is a semi-finals bowl rotation, they also have those bowls host the first three at-large out and the seventh conference champion in a suitably big money for "first out of the CFP" bowls. Since the PAC-12 proposal for a P5 autobid got knocked down, that might attract support from the PAC-12 as an airbag in case they crash to 7th conference champion in a year, and the PAC-12 might be able to talk the Big Ten into supporting it.

Even that is asking them to go from a minimum of one non-Contract-Conference spot set aside to a minimum of two. I am not opposed to making an ambit claim, even if it is a bit of a long odds ask, but asking for a minimum of three non-Contract-Conference spots to be set aside seems to me to be too big a jump for a single negotiation cycle.

And existing bowls with tie-ins with conferences that get pushed down by the two extra high value bowl games would cry foul, which is why even that would not likely to get up if the 12 team CFP is being pursued as an extension of the existing contract.

I'm not 100% convinced the powers that be will view the 6th highest conference champion playoff spot as a direct replacement for the G5 access bowl. If one takes that interpretation then all a top ranked G5 champ will get in most years is a trip to face program #5 on the road which isn't as nice as a season ending bowl destination.

Its great for an undefeated MAC team to do what all those Toledo, Miami, Marshall and NIU teams never had a chance to do which is to give them a fair chance at an NC.

However IMO it would be nice to see 7th and 8th fight it out for an access bowl which gives CCG's in the MWC, MAC, CUSA, SBC some meaning. Conferences that pay well enough for high quality coaching staffs but not brinks trucks for nations top recruiters. Reward champs for a nice 10 or 11 win season when 12-1 puts them into the playoff.

I'd rather mention a 7th/8th champ access bowl than to concede the 4 champs left out of the CFP are shut out from a major bowl game. At least until we know how the 12 team will adjust the bowl structure.
06-30-2021 01:00 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UofToledoFans Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,638
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 127
I Root For: Toledo and G5
Location:
Post: #55
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(06-30-2021 01:00 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(06-30-2021 12:52 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(06-29-2021 12:31 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(06-29-2021 01:28 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(06-28-2021 10:53 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  They have no answer yet as to what the 4 conference champs who do not make the CFP are going to do.

Nor are they likely to have any answer different from today.

What's proposed is an 11 game format, with 4 conference champs left out.

What I'm proposing is making it a 12 game format which pits the two highest champs left out. This makes it improbable that and P5 champ would be left outside without at least an access bowl.

I'm not saying they are likely to do this but I'm saying I believe it would be a good idea and a replacement for the traditional access bowl of the G5.

They are going to view the guaranteed access for a minimum of one non-Contract Bowl conference into the championship as an upgrade to the access bowl ... which itself is far from a traditional concession, since it is only as old as the CFP itself. The previous BCS versions of access were qualified by ranking.

So also demanding a cross subsidy to generate a big money bowl for the seventh and eighth place conference champions seems to me like a bridge too far.

Quote: To be perfectly honest competing for a national championship isn't realistic for a MAC program like it is for a few of the AAC. MAC doesn't pay enough to put up a Top 10 team on a sustained basis. But going 11-2 is realistic but not a playoff worthy type record. Access bowl can then be the answer for a good MAC season.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have it to shoot for, I'm just saying that it's hard to see that version.

If the 2023 date slips because there are too many people with vetoes to satisfy everybody, then for a 2026 new contract negotiation, the version I can see as a possibility for getting up, even if not a likelihood, is if there is a semi-finals bowl rotation, they also have those bowls host the first three at-large out and the seventh conference champion in a suitably big money for "first out of the CFP" bowls. Since the PAC-12 proposal for a P5 autobid got knocked down, that might attract support from the PAC-12 as an airbag in case they crash to 7th conference champion in a year, and the PAC-12 might be able to talk the Big Ten into supporting it.

Even that is asking them to go from a minimum of one non-Contract-Conference spot set aside to a minimum of two. I am not opposed to making an ambit claim, even if it is a bit of a long odds ask, but asking for a minimum of three non-Contract-Conference spots to be set aside seems to me to be too big a jump for a single negotiation cycle.

And existing bowls with tie-ins with conferences that get pushed down by the two extra high value bowl games would cry foul, which is why even that would not likely to get up if the 12 team CFP is being pursued as an extension of the existing contract.

I'm not 100% convinced the powers that be will view the 6th highest conference champion playoff spot as a direct replacement for the G5 access bowl. If one takes that interpretation then all a top ranked G5 champ will get in most years is a trip to face program #5 on the road which isn't as nice as a season ending bowl destination.

Its great for an undefeated MAC team to do what all those Toledo, Miami, Marshall and NIU teams never had a chance to do which is to give them a fair chance at an NC.

However IMO it would be nice to see 7th and 8th fight it out for an access bowl which gives CCG's in the MWC, MAC, CUSA, SBC some meaning. Conferences that pay well enough for high quality coaching staffs but not brinks trucks for nations top recruiters. Reward champs for a nice 10 or 11 win season when 12-1 puts them into the playoff.

I'd rather mention a 7th/8th champ access bowl than to concede the 4 champs left out of the CFP are shut out from a major bowl game. At least until we know how the 12 team will adjust the bowl structure.

Believe it or not WMU and NIU are made fun of for their NY6 appearances. Folks forget real fast that the games were competitive, and blame the G5 for being bad... (in respect to the MAC). No one gives a **** about the Cotton Bowl. 4 million viewers to play the 4th SEC team? yayyy. I want a shot to knock someone off and advance. Winning said access bowl is cool and all but it means something different every year depending on the opponent and coverage/story around it. Making the Top12 playoff is essentially A sweet 16 appearance, not just a bracketbuster. Eventually someone will win a couple and make the final 4 too... Boise, TCU and UCF had teams that legitimately would have had a shot. This also keeps high profile players from sitting. Georgia had like 15 dudes out against UC last year. Florida gave up and didnt want any piece of Oklahoma last year. F those access bowls.
06-30-2021 01:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bronco'14 Offline
WMU
*

Posts: 12,357
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 201
I Root For: WMU Broncos
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Post: #56
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
I don't know anyone who made fun of WMU for their NY6 appearance. NIU, yeah, Florida St fans certainly did. But those don't seem to be popular opinions.

Giving 2016 WMU or 2013 NIU a chance at the playoff, yeah, that's when you start getting made fun of. A bowl game vs solid (but not championship-caliber) P5, no.
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2021 01:49 PM by Bronco'14.)
06-30-2021 01:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hiller4Hyz09 Offline
Bronco Addict
*

Posts: 13,360
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 174
I Root For: WMU
Location:
Post: #57
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(06-30-2021 01:24 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  
(06-30-2021 01:00 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(06-30-2021 12:52 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(06-29-2021 12:31 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(06-29-2021 01:28 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Nor are they likely to have any answer different from today.

What's proposed is an 11 game format, with 4 conference champs left out.

What I'm proposing is making it a 12 game format which pits the two highest champs left out. This makes it improbable that and P5 champ would be left outside without at least an access bowl.

I'm not saying they are likely to do this but I'm saying I believe it would be a good idea and a replacement for the traditional access bowl of the G5.

They are going to view the guaranteed access for a minimum of one non-Contract Bowl conference into the championship as an upgrade to the access bowl ... which itself is far from a traditional concession, since it is only as old as the CFP itself. The previous BCS versions of access were qualified by ranking.

So also demanding a cross subsidy to generate a big money bowl for the seventh and eighth place conference champions seems to me like a bridge too far.

Quote: To be perfectly honest competing for a national championship isn't realistic for a MAC program like it is for a few of the AAC. MAC doesn't pay enough to put up a Top 10 team on a sustained basis. But going 11-2 is realistic but not a playoff worthy type record. Access bowl can then be the answer for a good MAC season.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have it to shoot for, I'm just saying that it's hard to see that version.

If the 2023 date slips because there are too many people with vetoes to satisfy everybody, then for a 2026 new contract negotiation, the version I can see as a possibility for getting up, even if not a likelihood, is if there is a semi-finals bowl rotation, they also have those bowls host the first three at-large out and the seventh conference champion in a suitably big money for "first out of the CFP" bowls. Since the PAC-12 proposal for a P5 autobid got knocked down, that might attract support from the PAC-12 as an airbag in case they crash to 7th conference champion in a year, and the PAC-12 might be able to talk the Big Ten into supporting it.

Even that is asking them to go from a minimum of one non-Contract-Conference spot set aside to a minimum of two. I am not opposed to making an ambit claim, even if it is a bit of a long odds ask, but asking for a minimum of three non-Contract-Conference spots to be set aside seems to me to be too big a jump for a single negotiation cycle.

And existing bowls with tie-ins with conferences that get pushed down by the two extra high value bowl games would cry foul, which is why even that would not likely to get up if the 12 team CFP is being pursued as an extension of the existing contract.

I'm not 100% convinced the powers that be will view the 6th highest conference champion playoff spot as a direct replacement for the G5 access bowl. If one takes that interpretation then all a top ranked G5 champ will get in most years is a trip to face program #5 on the road which isn't as nice as a season ending bowl destination.

Its great for an undefeated MAC team to do what all those Toledo, Miami, Marshall and NIU teams never had a chance to do which is to give them a fair chance at an NC.

However IMO it would be nice to see 7th and 8th fight it out for an access bowl which gives CCG's in the MWC, MAC, CUSA, SBC some meaning. Conferences that pay well enough for high quality coaching staffs but not brinks trucks for nations top recruiters. Reward champs for a nice 10 or 11 win season when 12-1 puts them into the playoff.

I'd rather mention a 7th/8th champ access bowl than to concede the 4 champs left out of the CFP are shut out from a major bowl game. At least until we know how the 12 team will adjust the bowl structure.

I want a shot to knock someone off and advance.


I read this as "in advance," and that would start to alter what is into what could be.
06-30-2021 05:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,108
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #58
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(06-30-2021 01:00 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  I'm not 100% convinced the powers that be will view the 6th highest conference champion playoff spot as a direct replacement for the G5 access bowl. If one takes that interpretation then all a top ranked G5 champ will get in most years is a trip to face program #5 on the road which isn't as nice as a season ending bowl destination.

It seems like you are assuming that the perspective of the Powers That Be is the same as the perspective of a supporter of a Go5 conference. By contrast, I doubt that that is true.

Ans also, this is competitive sports. Most fans will take a shot at an upset win and an appearance in a really big bowl with real championship stakes over an exhibition game.

Quote: ... However IMO it would be nice to see 7th and 8th fight it out for an access bowl which gives CCG's in the MWC, MAC, CUSA, SBC some meaning. ...

As I said, it would be nice.

I was addressing whether it would make sense to push for it, given that it amounts to asking the P5 conferences to give up some of the CFP revenue in order to subsidize a bowl that the media partners would not be willing to pay enough money for to make it self-supporting. Demanding something that is almost certainly not going to be given is wasting time and effort that could be spent fighting for something that is achievable.
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2021 10:53 PM by BruceMcF.)
06-30-2021 10:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #59
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(06-30-2021 10:49 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(06-30-2021 01:00 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  I'm not 100% convinced the powers that be will view the 6th highest conference champion playoff spot as a direct replacement for the G5 access bowl. If one takes that interpretation then all a top ranked G5 champ will get in most years is a trip to face program #5 on the road which isn't as nice as a season ending bowl destination.

It seems like you are assuming that the perspective of the Powers That Be is the same as the perspective of a supporter of a Go5 conference. By contrast, I doubt that that is true.

Ans also, this is competitive sports. Most fans will take a shot at an upset win and an appearance in a really big bowl with real championship stakes over an exhibition game.

Quote: ... However IMO it would be nice to see 7th and 8th fight it out for an access bowl which gives CCG's in the MWC, MAC, CUSA, SBC some meaning. ...

As I said, it would be nice.

I was addressing whether it would make sense to push for it, given that it amounts to asking the P5 conferences to give up some of the CFP revenue in order to subsidize a bowl that the media partners would not be willing to pay enough money for to make it self-supporting. Demanding something that is almost certainly not going to be given is wasting time and effort that could be spent fighting for something that is achievable.

Didn't we hear on the realignment board again and again IF the playoff expands that it will be in the context of giving the P5 automatic bids to it? Well that of course didn't happen, they went with Top 6 champs and 6 at-larges.

I'm concerned about it particularly when all Western Michigan could do was achieve a CFP ranking of #15, not high enough to get into the playoff as an at-large. On a typical season the AAC champion will be ranked higher than that so then what does the MAC get then? Nothing?

From the AAC perspective its not such a problem to crack the Top 12. They have better recruiting bases to work with and they spend $$$ which the MAC doesn't.

The MAC should upgrade its bowl situation if they can. Bowls are important in football for program development with the extra practices and are a measuring stick for performance. If there was a possibility of the MAC Champion guaranteed to a higher level bowl then the MAC wouldn't have to play out west in Boise anymore.

I don't think the bowl system is going away just from expanding the CFP to 12 but it could be an opportunity to upgrade bowls, inside or outside the CFP structure.
06-30-2021 11:16 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #60
RE: CFP to Expand to 12 Teams?
(06-30-2021 01:24 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  
(06-30-2021 01:00 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(06-30-2021 12:52 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(06-29-2021 12:31 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(06-29-2021 01:28 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Nor are they likely to have any answer different from today.

What's proposed is an 11 game format, with 4 conference champs left out.

What I'm proposing is making it a 12 game format which pits the two highest champs left out. This makes it improbable that and P5 champ would be left outside without at least an access bowl.

I'm not saying they are likely to do this but I'm saying I believe it would be a good idea and a replacement for the traditional access bowl of the G5.

They are going to view the guaranteed access for a minimum of one non-Contract Bowl conference into the championship as an upgrade to the access bowl ... which itself is far from a traditional concession, since it is only as old as the CFP itself. The previous BCS versions of access were qualified by ranking.

So also demanding a cross subsidy to generate a big money bowl for the seventh and eighth place conference champions seems to me like a bridge too far.

Quote: To be perfectly honest competing for a national championship isn't realistic for a MAC program like it is for a few of the AAC. MAC doesn't pay enough to put up a Top 10 team on a sustained basis. But going 11-2 is realistic but not a playoff worthy type record. Access bowl can then be the answer for a good MAC season.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have it to shoot for, I'm just saying that it's hard to see that version.

If the 2023 date slips because there are too many people with vetoes to satisfy everybody, then for a 2026 new contract negotiation, the version I can see as a possibility for getting up, even if not a likelihood, is if there is a semi-finals bowl rotation, they also have those bowls host the first three at-large out and the seventh conference champion in a suitably big money for "first out of the CFP" bowls. Since the PAC-12 proposal for a P5 autobid got knocked down, that might attract support from the PAC-12 as an airbag in case they crash to 7th conference champion in a year, and the PAC-12 might be able to talk the Big Ten into supporting it.

Even that is asking them to go from a minimum of one non-Contract-Conference spot set aside to a minimum of two. I am not opposed to making an ambit claim, even if it is a bit of a long odds ask, but asking for a minimum of three non-Contract-Conference spots to be set aside seems to me to be too big a jump for a single negotiation cycle.

And existing bowls with tie-ins with conferences that get pushed down by the two extra high value bowl games would cry foul, which is why even that would not likely to get up if the 12 team CFP is being pursued as an extension of the existing contract.

I'm not 100% convinced the powers that be will view the 6th highest conference champion playoff spot as a direct replacement for the G5 access bowl. If one takes that interpretation then all a top ranked G5 champ will get in most years is a trip to face program #5 on the road which isn't as nice as a season ending bowl destination.

Its great for an undefeated MAC team to do what all those Toledo, Miami, Marshall and NIU teams never had a chance to do which is to give them a fair chance at an NC.

However IMO it would be nice to see 7th and 8th fight it out for an access bowl which gives CCG's in the MWC, MAC, CUSA, SBC some meaning. Conferences that pay well enough for high quality coaching staffs but not brinks trucks for nations top recruiters. Reward champs for a nice 10 or 11 win season when 12-1 puts them into the playoff.

I'd rather mention a 7th/8th champ access bowl than to concede the 4 champs left out of the CFP are shut out from a major bowl game. At least until we know how the 12 team will adjust the bowl structure.

Believe it or not WMU and NIU are made fun of for their NY6 appearances. Folks forget real fast that the games were competitive, and blame the G5 for being bad... (in respect to the MAC). No one gives a **** about the Cotton Bowl. 4 million viewers to play the 4th SEC team? yayyy. I want a shot to knock someone off and advance. Winning said access bowl is cool and all but it means something different every year depending on the opponent and coverage/story around it. Making the Top12 playoff is essentially A sweet 16 appearance, not just a bracketbuster. Eventually someone will win a couple and make the final 4 too... Boise, TCU and UCF had teams that legitimately would have had a shot. This also keeps high profile players from sitting. Georgia had like 15 dudes out against UC last year. Florida gave up and didnt want any piece of Oklahoma last year. F those access bowls.

A berth in the Gator Bowl for the MAC against a P5 opponent is better than playing the MWC in Boise for a variety of reasons.

The historic complaint about MAC football has been that we send our champ to a minor bowl game so nothing is on the line. Playing for a NC of course was a preposterous idea, and while that has been resolved in theory I doubt I'll see a MAC team in the playoff in my lifetime with the way the CFP committee ranks programs.

A bigger bowl for the MAC champion would be an important step. Even if it was one access bowl for the 7th conference champion vs. last team in the CFP rankings left out that would probably be enough to cover an undefeated MAC season.

Another option might be to work out a rotation between higher level G5 bowls and including spots for BYU/Army.

Arizona Bowl (MWC #1 vs. BYU x2/Army x2)
Independence Bowl (CUSA #1 vs. BYU x2/Army x2)
Cure Bowl (SBC #1 vs. BYU x2/Army x2)

BYU and Army can only take 2 slots at most per year in the 3 bowls then the MAC takes the third slot. Gives the MAC at least a true #1 bowl arrangement which its lacking for its champ at the moment.

I hope the MAC can keep the bowl in Detroit vs. the B1G as it has now but I kind of doubt it if 3-4 bowls will have to be cut to support the playoff.
06-30-2021 11:54 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: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 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, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.