A Question that needs to be asked;

now iam hearing that cfp moving to 6and 6 might triple the $$$ going to A5 schools... that’s cool
but how much more money could the A5 schools get if the cfp went to 10 and 6, meaning all 10 FBS conferences and max wild cards, i wonder just how much more
And then technically the autonomous 5 could keep the lion share of all this money because it’s the A5 playoffs and championship
so it’s a A5 trade off, leave the money on the table and be even more boring with your solid monopoly or cash in ?
you make the call...

The 6th conference champ was the bone they threw to the G5 (mainly to avoid a lawsuit). Even if they were to expand to 16, I doubt the P5 would be generous enough to grant autobids for every G5 conference. G5 champs quite often aren't even ranked.

(06-14-2021 02:32 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  A Question that needs to be asked;

now iam hearing that cfp moving to 6and 6 might triple the $$$ going to A5 schools... that’s cool
but how much more money could the A5 schools get if the cfp went to 10 and 6, meaning all 10 FBS conferences and max wild cards, i wonder just how much more
And then technically the autonomous 5 could keep the lion share of all this money because it’s the A5 playoffs and championship
so it’s a A5 trade off, leave the money on the table and be even more boring with your solid monopoly or cash in ?
you make the call...

It's not clear to me that the P5 would be leaving money on the table for themselves.

In a 12-team playoff, the P5 is assuming that they're going to all get a conference champ auto-bid plus the lion's share (and possibly all if you include ND as a part of the P5) wild card slots in every year with very few exceptions (e.g. the Pac-12 champ would have been shut out of this system last season).

The 16-team playoff doesn't increase the wild card slots and only adds in G5 champ slots in practicality. It's not clear to me that the P5 revenue would increase here (and maybe more importantly, their advantage over the G5 would outright decrease).

Maybe you could argue that the P5 would make some more money in a 16-team playoff simply due to overall game inventory, but let's be truthful here: virtually all of the benefits of a 16-team playoff compared to a 12-team playoff would accrue to the G5... and to paraphrase a Sun Belt AD that was quoted last week, helping the G5 isn't the point of expanding the playoff.

My guess is this 12 team thing was picked specifically to maximize money for the overall value of the playoff and the amount the P5 get.

Letting in the last 4 champs means:

A bigger share for the G5

The 4 additional opening round games are prone to be lopsided affairs and bloodbaths are not good for tv viewership.

(06-14-2021 04:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  My guess is this 12 team thing was picked specifically to maximize money for the overall value of the playoff and the amount the P5 get.

Letting in the last 4 champs means:

A bigger share for the G5

The 4 additional opening round games are prone to be lopsided affairs and bloodbaths are not good for tv viewership.

you might just be correct, at least at this moment in time but give the 12 about say 3 , 4 years and things might feel differently say something like adding one more conference champion in, this mostly would be the MWC, then say another 3 or 4 years add an 8th and so on, i see this is how it’s going to play out

(06-14-2021 02:42 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 02:32 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  A Question that needs to be asked;

now iam hearing that cfp moving to 6and 6 might triple the $$$ going to A5 schools... that’s cool
but how much more money could the A5 schools get if the cfp went to 10 and 6, meaning all 10 FBS conferences and max wild cards, i wonder just how much more
And then technically the autonomous 5 could keep the lion share of all this money because it’s the A5 playoffs and championship
so it’s a A5 trade off, leave the money on the table and be even more boring with your solid monopoly or cash in ?
you make the call...

It's not clear to me that the P5 would be leaving money on the table for themselves.

In a 12-team playoff, the P5 is assuming that they're going to all get a conference champ auto-bid plus the lion's share (and possibly all if you include ND as a part of the P5) wild card slots in every year with very few exceptions (e.g. the Pac-12 champ would have been shut out of this system last season).

The 16-team playoff doesn't increase the wild card slots and only adds in G5 champ slots in practicality. It's not clear to me that the P5 revenue would increase here (and maybe more importantly, their advantage over the G5 would outright decrease).

Maybe you could argue that the P5 would make some more money in a 16-team playoff simply due to overall game inventory, but let's be truthful here: virtually all of the benefits of a 16-team playoff compared to a 12-team playoff would accrue to the G5... and to paraphrase a Sun Belt AD that was quoted last week, helping the G5 isn't the point of expanding the playoff.

If they went 16 I bet it would still be the 6 highest ranked conference champs and then 10 at large bids. Cincy and Coastal would’ve gotten the 5th and 6th at large bids because of the PAC-12 dumpster fire but in no scenario did Ball State or San Jose State deserve an auto-bid.

(06-14-2021 04:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  My guess is this 12 team thing was picked specifically to maximize money for the overall value of the playoff and the amount the P5 get.

Letting in the last 4 champs means:

A bigger share for the G5

The 4 additional opening round games are prone to be lopsided affairs and bloodbaths are not good for tv viewership.

The best way to do a 16 team playoff (with all 10 champs) would be with double-byes. This setup would prevent "lopsided blood baths" while increasing TV inventory of competitive games spread over a longer period, adding interest with unexpected matchups and "Cinderella" potential. A potential problem it would take 5 weeks to complete (6 if you add a bye week before finals), though I think drawing it out only builds buzz. Bottom 8 teams play first week. Winners play at seed 5-8 second week, with week 2 winners playing at top 4 seeds in week 3. Winners go to a week 4 semifinal at neutral sites, leading to a final in late January.

This would prevent things like a week one Alabama blowout of UAB, while generating excitement with the chance of a multi-week surprise run by the likes of a weak P5 or strong G5 champ. Added weeks would also allow time for the hype train to build to the big guys joining the fray.

I suspect this would generate significantly more TV money overall than a 12 team playoff and you could get the G5 to agree to a smaller share merely for the access they would be granted.

(06-14-2021 02:32 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  A Question that needs to be asked;

now iam hearing that cfp moving to 6and 6 might triple the $$$ going to A5 schools... that’s cool
but how much more money could the A5 schools get if the cfp went to 10 and 6, meaning all 10 FBS conferences and max wild cards, i wonder just how much more ...

If they wanted a lopsided distribution between champions and at-large spots, they could just say the top six champions and two at-larges for 8. Or the top five champions, plus the sixth hosts the seventh in a play-in game, plus two at-larges for 5-(2)-2.

If they expanded to 16, it would be at most the eight top champions and eight at-larges, but the payment share for participation for the Go5 would shift from something like{+} a minimum 1/20 to 3/28, which is 5% to 10.7%, while the extra games include two or three bloodbath games, so the total viewing audience for eight games in a first round weekend is not automatically a lot bigger than the total viewing audience for four games in a first round weekend. You get a lot more cannibalization of viewing in the 16 game version, where people pick the interesting games to watch and skip the expected bloodbaths. Indeed, a lot of the lowest viewership games will be the ones with the two extra Go5 schools participating.

{+This assumes the participation unit is similar to the Tourney, where you don't get a unit for being in the Championship game, as the media visibility of being in the Championship game is viewed as its own sufficient reward.}

__________________

(06-14-2021 11:06 PM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  The best way to do a 16 team playoff (with all 10 champs) would be with double-byes. This setup would prevent "lopsided blood baths" while increasing TV inventory of competitive games spread over a longer period, adding interest with unexpected matchups and "Cinderella" potential. A potential problem it would take 5 weeks to complete ...

More than a potential problem ... that's the deal killer for any system that requires more than four total rounds. The only reason a 5-(2)-2 with a lower ranked champion play-in game is feasible is the main tournament starts with the quarterfinals so the play-in game adds one round to come to four.

But looking at the way that participation units can be used to make sure the lion's share of the money stays with the Power Conferences, those 6 at-large spots make a compelling financial case for the powers that be.