(06-17-2021 12:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-17-2021 06:21 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  You really think these guys would be shy about saying "The 12 team model just makes more financial sense, provides more access and drives interest in college football, compared to 8 teams?" Naah, I think they'd just say that.

Sometimes people tell the truth. For Notre Dame, the 8 team model means they have 2 spots open. The 12 team model means they have 6 spots. That's a simpler explanation than bank-shots about how they're all of a sudden get shy about picking the model than makes more money.

Agreed. Six at-large spots is great for both Notre Dame and the top half of the SEC, and much better for them than a format with two at-large spots. No coincidence that the ND AD and the SEC commish were two of the four people on this committee.

I would modify that slightly. We *know* that six at-large spots is great for Notre Dame. That's just plain mathematical. The SEC *thinks* all these at-large spots are good for it, because it has the confidence (hubris?) to think that it will keep putting 3 or 4 teams in the top 12 in the future as it has in the past 10+ years.

But they could be wrong about that.

(06-17-2021 08:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 10:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 02:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 11:10 AM)usffan Wrote:  https://www.si.com/college/2021/06/16/co...-teams-why

Two nuggets that I think would be of interest - they considered a 24 team playoff, and they'd settled on 12 before the pandemic even started. So much for the driver being lost revenues due to COVID...

USFFan

I suspect 12 was arrived at to appease the SEC and B1G, and Notre Dame, to allow for more at-large bids.

But I think Covid revenue was likely a factor in *hastening* the movement towards a new model. Sans the virus, I don't think we'd be getting a report on expanded playoffs right now. But who knows?

COVID could have hastened it, but I believe people need to think about it in macro terms.

The powers that be know that paying players is coming one way or the other. It's not just NIL either. Some form of new compensation system will be forced on them either by Congress or by individual States or by a SCOTUS ruling in the not too distant future.

Some have asked why is everyone ok with the colleges cashing in on the CFP and not rewarding the players. The better question is why would we expect the colleges to add new expenses before they maximize their earning potential. They will need new revenue to pay athletes.

I don't disagree. We can think of the virus and the coming pay-for-play as being kind of a one-two punch that hastened the adoption of this 12-team playoff.

ESPN wanted secrecy to give them a chance to scoop this and amend the existing contract and extend it significantly. COVID losses merely moved up the most opportune time to gain universal acceptance. Let no crisis pass unused!

(06-17-2021 08:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-17-2021 12:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-17-2021 06:21 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  You really think these guys would be shy about saying "The 12 team model just makes more financial sense, provides more access and drives interest in college football, compared to 8 teams?" Naah, I think they'd just say that.

Sometimes people tell the truth. For Notre Dame, the 8 team model means they have 2 spots open. The 12 team model means they have 6 spots. That's a simpler explanation than bank-shots about how they're all of a sudden get shy about picking the model than makes more money.

Agreed. Six at-large spots is great for both Notre Dame and the top half of the SEC, and much better for them than a format with two at-large spots. No coincidence that the ND AD and the SEC commish were two of the four people on this committee.

I would modify that slightly. We *know* that six at-large spots is great for Notre Dame. That's just plain mathematical. The SEC *thinks* all these at-large spots are good for it, because it has the confidence (hubris?) to think that it will keep putting 3 or 4 teams in the top 12 in the future as it has in the past 10+ years.

But they could be wrong about that.

The SEC doesn't need "hubris" just logic. The South is growing and the Northern Midwest isn't keeping pace. The South has a solid high school football culture and in the North it's spotty (Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania). We supply the bulk of recruits (counting Texas here as well) and out west high school football participation is down.

It's called demographics Quo and they are getting locked in due to many factors ranging from jobs free of unions, to weather, to tax rates, to political culture, to lower cost of living.

You, being a transplant with SEC schadenfreude can't, or won't, let you acknowledge it but things aren't changing until we face a polar flip, a new ice age, or the idiots on both sides of our government get us wiped out. "Fat, stupid and believing in things happening that contradict human nature is no way to go through life son!" to paraphrase Dean Wormer.

(06-17-2021 09:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-17-2021 08:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-17-2021 12:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-17-2021 06:21 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  You really think these guys would be shy about saying "The 12 team model just makes more financial sense, provides more access and drives interest in college football, compared to 8 teams?" Naah, I think they'd just say that.

Sometimes people tell the truth. For Notre Dame, the 8 team model means they have 2 spots open. The 12 team model means they have 6 spots. That's a simpler explanation than bank-shots about how they're all of a sudden get shy about picking the model than makes more money.

Agreed. Six at-large spots is great for both Notre Dame and the top half of the SEC, and much better for them than a format with two at-large spots. No coincidence that the ND AD and the SEC commish were two of the four people on this committee.

I would modify that slightly. We *know* that six at-large spots is great for Notre Dame. That's just plain mathematical. The SEC *thinks* all these at-large spots are good for it, because it has the confidence (hubris?) to think that it will keep putting 3 or 4 teams in the top 12 in the future as it has in the past 10+ years.

But they could be wrong about that.

The SEC doesn't need "hubris" just logic. The South is growing and the Northern Midwest isn't keeping pace. The South has a solid high school football culture and in the North it's spotty (Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania). We supply the bulk of recruits (counting Texas here as well) and out west high school football participation is down.

It's called demographics Quo and they are getting locked in due to many factors ranging from jobs free of unions, to weather, to tax rates, to political culture, to lower cost of living.

You, being a transplant with SEC schadenfreude can't, or won't, let you acknowledge it but things aren't changing until we face a polar flip, a new ice age, or the idiots on both sides of our government get us wiped out. "Fat, stupid and believing in things happening that contradict human nature is no way to go through life son!" to paraphrase Dean Wormer.

yes and yes sr...

(06-17-2021 09:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-17-2021 08:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-17-2021 12:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-17-2021 06:21 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  You really think these guys would be shy about saying "The 12 team model just makes more financial sense, provides more access and drives interest in college football, compared to 8 teams?" Naah, I think they'd just say that.

Sometimes people tell the truth. For Notre Dame, the 8 team model means they have 2 spots open. The 12 team model means they have 6 spots. That's a simpler explanation than bank-shots about how they're all of a sudden get shy about picking the model than makes more money.

Agreed. Six at-large spots is great for both Notre Dame and the top half of the SEC, and much better for them than a format with two at-large spots. No coincidence that the ND AD and the SEC commish were two of the four people on this committee.

I would modify that slightly. We *know* that six at-large spots is great for Notre Dame. That's just plain mathematical. The SEC *thinks* all these at-large spots are good for it, because it has the confidence (hubris?) to think that it will keep putting 3 or 4 teams in the top 12 in the future as it has in the past 10+ years.

But they could be wrong about that.

The SEC doesn't need "hubris" just logic. The South is growing and the Northern Midwest isn't keeping pace. The South has a solid high school football culture and in the North it's spotty (Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania). We supply the bulk of recruits (counting Texas here as well) and out west high school football participation is down.

It's called demographics Quo and they are getting locked in due to many factors ranging from jobs free of unions, to weather, to tax rates, to political culture, to lower cost of living.

You, being a transplant with SEC schadenfreude can't, or won't, let you acknowledge it but things aren't changing until we face a polar flip, a new ice age, or the idiots on both sides of our government get us wiped out. "Fat, stupid and believing in things happening that contradict human nature is no way to go through life son!" to paraphrase Dean Wormer.

Eh, I hope you are correct, because I have developed a soft spot for the SEC. I like it. But ..... we shall see.

(06-17-2021 01:34 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Where it’s more intriguing...who’s calling the AAC to inquire about that old UConn slot? Who’s calling other G5 conferences? Will there be some raiding between these conferences while P5 remain stable?

What has kept G5 expansion in check is partially the G5 distribution plan where each conference received a base distribution of 1 million per school, up to 10 schools.

This has dissuaded the SBC from moving past 10 and/or CUSA going larger to reduce travel. If this rule was no longer around we could see more willingness to shift conferences in hope of increasing probability of making the playoff.

This early move to a 12 team playoff could lead to some movement to happen now before ink dries on the contract. Once the contract is in place it may specify its only valid for the existing 10 conferences so if a grouping of schools were to go out and form a new one afterwards they could be on the outside looking in on the playoff money, at least for the duration of the next CFP contract.

For that reason we might not see a CUSA split or anything equivalent in the short term.

(06-18-2021 07:20 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-17-2021 01:34 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Where it’s more intriguing...who’s calling the AAC to inquire about that old UConn slot? Who’s calling other G5 conferences? Will there be some raiding between these conferences while P5 remain stable?

What has kept G5 expansion in check is partially the G5 distribution plan where each conference received a base distribution of 1 million per school, up to 10 schools.

This has dissuaded the SBC from moving past 10 and/or CUSA going larger to reduce travel. If this rule was no longer around we could see more willingness to shift conferences in hope of increasing probability of making the playoff.

This early move to a 12 team playoff could lead to some movement to happen now before ink dries on the contract. Once the contract is in place it may specify its only valid for the existing 10 conferences so if a grouping of schools were to go out and form a new one afterwards they could be on the outside looking in on the playoff money, at least for the duration of the next CFP contract.

For that reason we might not see a CUSA split or anything equivalent in the short term.

Yeah, I could see any number of outcomes, but it will hinge on the final arrangement for the expanded playoff. I do think a greater blow will be dealt to independents not named Notre Dame, putting some pressure on schools to call conferences for inclusion. Depending on whether there’s a possibility for just one playoff slot for G5 champs or more (since it sounds like the PAC thinks all five of the majors should send their champs), it might come down to pressure on one or two conferences rather than all feeling it.

The ones I look at are BYU, UMass, and UConn. The thought that potentially other non-majors could access a slot just because of a conference probably pressures these three to find some arrangement. Or, say goodbye to FBS, UMass and UConn.

(06-21-2021 08:44 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-18-2021 07:20 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-17-2021 01:34 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Where it’s more intriguing...who’s calling the AAC to inquire about that old UConn slot? Who’s calling other G5 conferences? Will there be some raiding between these conferences while P5 remain stable?

What has kept G5 expansion in check is partially the G5 distribution plan where each conference received a base distribution of 1 million per school, up to 10 schools.

This has dissuaded the SBC from moving past 10 and/or CUSA going larger to reduce travel. If this rule was no longer around we could see more willingness to shift conferences in hope of increasing probability of making the playoff.

This early move to a 12 team playoff could lead to some movement to happen now before ink dries on the contract. Once the contract is in place it may specify its only valid for the existing 10 conferences so if a grouping of schools were to go out and form a new one afterwards they could be on the outside looking in on the playoff money, at least for the duration of the next CFP contract.

For that reason we might not see a CUSA split or anything equivalent in the short term.

Yeah, I could see any number of outcomes, but it will hinge on the final arrangement for the expanded playoff. I do think a greater blow will be dealt to independents not named Notre Dame, putting some pressure on schools to call conferences for inclusion. Depending on whether there’s a possibility for just one playoff slot for G5 champs or more (since it sounds like the PAC thinks all five of the majors should send their champs), it might come down to pressure on one or two conferences rather than all feeling it.

The ones I look at are BYU, UMass, and UConn. The thought that potentially other non-majors could access a slot just because of a conference probably pressures these three to find some arrangement. Or, say goodbye to FBS, UMass and UConn.

I could see Umass and UConn ending up like BYU's current scenario. BYU uses independence to put together a more interesting schedule for their fans that a conference schedule can't provide, but doesn't really have an expectation of ever making the CFP. It's a trade-off, but seems to work for them.

(06-21-2021 09:52 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  I could see Umass and UConn ending up like BYU's current scenario. BYU uses independence to put together a more interesting schedule for their fans that a conference schedule can't provide, but doesn't really have an expectation of ever making the CFP. It's a trade-off, but seems to work for them.

I think BYU feels they can/could get a spot. I think that’s what pushes them toward scheduling more P5 schools if they can grab them, and how major conferences have made a special case for them as P5-like. However, I think the writing’s on the wall more now than ever with the anticipated new changes that their near kingly status as a higher-up non-major is challenged. That any non-major (or two) who ranks high enough gets in, while BYU “you do you?” I think there is motivation to find some home. Giving all these non-major schools even the faintest of hope for a spot now is more than an almost lock that BYU never gets a sniff. I doubt they are fine with that out there, you know?