Either go back to Bowls and Polls and end the season on NYD or scrap the Bowls and have a playoff with higher seeds having home field till the championship game.

(01-04-2022 03:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  If we want a playoff just like the NFL, then let's also do what the NFL does in structuring its league and its schedule. Let's also, while we're at it, find a legal mechanism for more equally distributing talent among the teams, and for reducing the number of teams so we have an NFL-size league. I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing a single 32 team league that shares media revenue equally.

Until we're ready to do that, guaranteeing 130 vastly unequal teams with vastly different schedules a "path" to a championship is just plain stupid. Let's face it. College football as it is now structured simply doesn't lend itself to the traditional playoff structure that makes sense in other sports and other leagues.

I think you start with a semi-pro SEC League, and then an equivalent national league forms. The SEC will be your "AFL" so to speak pre-Super Bowl era.

Then you let the other blue bloods in the game decide if they want a national conference with semi-professionals on the payroll for revenue sports.

Putative blue blood pods (counter-SEC) could look like:

East: OSU, UM, MSU, PSU, Indiana
Private: Stanford, ND, USC, Miami, NWU
Pacific: UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Cal, Arizona
Central: UN, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minn, Illinois

SEC replaces Vandy with Duke and adds +4 from ACC

North: UK, UNC, Duke, Maryland, USC
Southeast: FSU, Fla, Clemson, Tenn, UGa
Central: Bama, Auburn, MSU, Miss St, LSU
Southwest: UT, A&M, Arkansas, OU, Mizzou

Interpod rivals are protected followed by rotating games on a four year cycle. 8 team playoff per league (4 divisions winners +4 At-Large).

Add more pods or expanded divisions as more schools adopt the semi-professional model for revenue sports.

Nuff' said.

(01-04-2022 05:55 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:03 PM)SouthernMissSNu Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:00 PM)NJMark Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 12:23 PM)SouthernMissSNu Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 12:08 PM)esayem Wrote:  NAIL: MEET HEAD

Wow, what an excellent, succinct post. I've been saying this for YEARS on this board, bantering with the same nitwits that don't seem to grasp the concepts of milestones and objective goals throughout the season.

Professor Michael Leach of Washington State at the time, honorary PhD in Pirates, had a quote a few years ago that basically said if PeeWee, High School, NAIA, DII/DIII, FCS, and NFL can all figure it out, why can’t FBS?

From PeeWee to FCS, there’s not significant money involved, so nobody’s out to game the system to keep as much as they can for themselves.

And I completely reject any equating of FBS with the NFL:

NFL teams aren't responsible for their own schedules the way college teams are.

All NFL teams play the same number of home and away games. No one gets to say "but we need a majority of home games."

There are no 2-for-1 or 3-for-1 deals, no "buy games," and no buying out of contracted games.

NFL divisions are assigned by the league. No division raids another for more money or for more power or media markets or "footprint."

Every NFL team starts the season with at least a theoretical chance to play their way into the post-season ON THE FiELD. There is not a G5 who are essentially eliminated from playing in before the season begins. (Cincinnati this year was the ONE exception.)

In FBS, the best recruits go to the best teams. In the NFL, the best players are drafted by the WORST teams.

And that’s just off the top of my head.

If people want to make FBS "just like the NFL,” that's a conversation that can be had. But it's not legitimate to argue that playoffs should be just like the NFL when structurally, nothing else is.

Besides, I thought the entire premise of a playoff (that some people were demanding for years) was to settle "who's #1?" from among the top few deserving teams, not to crown a champion of an elaborate tournament.

But what about the prospect of making FBS just like Basketball or Baseball or any other NCAA sport?

Football only plays one game a week. That makes it impossible to have a playoff that includes all deserving teams.

In the NFL, they get around that by only having 32 teams.

In high school, they get around that by splitting each state into 6 (or more) divisions for playoffs. And even then, they have to keep the regular season really short. And even then, no one cares about the playoffs after their team is out.

I would argue that the FCS model is inferior to the FBS model. Their national titles mean very little because it's an exhaustive 5-week playoff that no one cares about by the time it's over. It's as exhausting as the NBA or NHL playoffs, except every round is only one game so the better team frequently loses on a fluke (unlike the NHL/NBA, where the better team is able to prove themselves over 7 games).

1. Deserving teams don't always make the playoffs or make it far in the playoffs. That's not what we're solving here. What we're trying to solve is creating an objective criteria instead of a 'deserving' or 'eye test' criteria. The NFL and High School and FCS playoffs do not always include all deserving teams.

2. The comparison to NBA or NHL is not as extensive it's not a 7 game series. While I get the point you're trying to make, the amount of games and frequency of the games is what makes the NBA/NHL/MLB tedious and extensive. The NFL playoffs is now 4 weeks long with a lesser frequency of games (2 days a week) including championship and I don't think many would call that tedious. That's the comparable aim here.

I'd argue that the current FBS model is more akin to the NBA/NHL models refrenced above. Too many bowl games over too long of a time period with too immediate of a frequency.

(01-04-2022 03:38 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 02:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  USC went 24-2 one year, but didn't make the NCAA tourney because they were 2nd to UCLA. In 2008, Texas, Oklahoma and Texas Tech were all tied at 11-1 in the Big 12 West. In 2011, had Arkansas pulled an upset in the finale against LSU, LSU, Arkansas and Alabama would all have been 11-1 and ranked 1-2-3. In 1971, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Colorado ended the season 1-2-3.

When you get 6 autobids for champs you limit the gaming opportunities. With 6 wildcards, only marginal teams get left out, not the legitimate contenders. You could do the same with 6-0-2 or 5-1-2 eight teams in the playoff, but I like 12 better. Gets more teams in and gives some advantage to the conference champs wtih a first round bye.

Bullet, it ain't basketball! Win your conference and you are the best representative for it. Everything else is mental constipation.

Basketball needs the number of schools to keep it interesting and they can play 4 games in a week if they must. Football's interest builds with exclusion. E.G. The Super Bowl draws more than the playoffs which draw more than the regular season. Playing 4 conferences down to 4 finalists concentrates interest. Do-overs and non-champs only cheapens all of it.

The point is that the champ is sometimes decided by tie-breaks. And sometimes the 2nd and 3rd best team are in the same conference or even the same division. And its not basketball. A team could have one loss on the road in OT. They aren't conference champs, but its not like they got a rematch at home as they might in basketball.

That's life. And the tie breaks are agreed upon by all in advance and exist because squeezing in an extra week for play in games isn't an available option in football. We are making a simple matter needlessly difficult, and fans hate tedium, and they hate do overs and at large positions create do overs. I wouldn't be at all surprised if karma bit Alabama in the butt this year and they wind up tasting the do over frustration that LSU tasted some years back.

I think a big thing of it though is TV wants the best teams period. I mean this year with Alabama, Michigan, Utah, and Pittsburgh is prime example of what TV does not want with champions only.

I don't think we're ever seeing 4 champions only.

Being a conference champion helps TV and media build broader interest in the playoffs. All 8 CFP have had at least 3 conference champions in the final selections. Many years the CFP has all 4 participants being champions only...most recently in 2019 with LSU, Ohio State, Clemson and Oklahoma.

It's a lot easier for TV to attract casual fans with diversity in the playoffs. Casual fans don't obsess about the "eye test". They trust that conference champions = merit. They'll more easily be able to root for or against their regional school.

It's the SEC (and possibly B1G) that didn't want the 4 champions-only restriction. ESPN needs diversity and brands, they could sell the playoffs under different formats.

(01-04-2022 06:17 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:38 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Bullet, it ain't basketball! Win your conference and you are the best representative for it. Everything else is mental constipation.

Basketball needs the number of schools to keep it interesting and they can play 4 games in a week if they must. Football's interest builds with exclusion. E.G. The Super Bowl draws more than the playoffs which draw more than the regular season. Playing 4 conferences down to 4 finalists concentrates interest. Do-overs and non-champs only cheapens all of it.

The point is that the champ is sometimes decided by tie-breaks. And sometimes the 2nd and 3rd best team are in the same conference or even the same division. And its not basketball. A team could have one loss on the road in OT. They aren't conference champs, but its not like they got a rematch at home as they might in basketball.

That's life. And the tie breaks are agreed upon by all in advance and exist because squeezing in an extra week for play in games isn't an available option in football. We are making a simple matter needlessly difficult, and fans hate tedium, and they hate do overs and at large positions create do overs. I wouldn't be at all surprised if karma bit Alabama in the butt this year and they wind up tasting the do over frustration that LSU tasted some years back.

I think a big thing of it though is TV wants the best teams period. I mean this year with Alabama, Michigan, Utah, and Pittsburgh is prime example of what TV does not want with champions only.

I don't think we're ever seeing 4 champions only.

Being a conference champion helps TV and media build broader interest in the playoffs. All 8 CFP have had at least 3 conference champions in the final selections. Many years the CFP has all 4 participants being champions only...most recently in 2019 with LSU, Ohio State, Clemson and Oklahoma.

It's a lot easier for TV to attract casual fans with diversity in the playoffs. Casual fans don't obsess about the "eye test". They trust that conference champions = merit. They'll more easily be able to root for or against their regional school.

It's the SEC (and possibly B1G) that didn't want the 4 champions-only restriction. ESPN needs diversity and brands, they could sell the playoffs under different formats.

I don't think for a second ESPN would rather have this year Baylor in the playoffs instead of Georgia.

(01-04-2022 04:13 PM)kdblazer Wrote:  The easy fix to this mess is to take all conference champions plus highest rated independent and a wildcard(essentially highest rated non conference champion). That would give you 12 teams plus first round bye for top four teams. This will ensure all conferences get a better share of cfp revenue and provide some parity.

It won't provide any parity at all. If it's just more revenue for the G5 that's the objective, you can give them that without guaranteeing them a berth in the CFP.

(01-04-2022 06:26 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 06:17 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:38 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  The point is that the champ is sometimes decided by tie-breaks. And sometimes the 2nd and 3rd best team are in the same conference or even the same division. And its not basketball. A team could have one loss on the road in OT. They aren't conference champs, but its not like they got a rematch at home as they might in basketball.

That's life. And the tie breaks are agreed upon by all in advance and exist because squeezing in an extra week for play in games isn't an available option in football. We are making a simple matter needlessly difficult, and fans hate tedium, and they hate do overs and at large positions create do overs. I wouldn't be at all surprised if karma bit Alabama in the butt this year and they wind up tasting the do over frustration that LSU tasted some years back.

I think a big thing of it though is TV wants the best teams period. I mean this year with Alabama, Michigan, Utah, and Pittsburgh is prime example of what TV does not want with champions only.

I don't think we're ever seeing 4 champions only.

Being a conference champion helps TV and media build broader interest in the playoffs. All 8 CFP have had at least 3 conference champions in the final selections. Many years the CFP has all 4 participants being champions only...most recently in 2019 with LSU, Ohio State, Clemson and Oklahoma.

It's a lot easier for TV to attract casual fans with diversity in the playoffs. Casual fans don't obsess about the "eye test". They trust that conference champions = merit. They'll more easily be able to root for or against their regional school.

It's the SEC (and possibly B1G) that didn't want the 4 champions-only restriction. ESPN needs diversity and brands, they could sell the playoffs under different formats.

I don't think for a second ESPN would rather have this year Baylor in the playoffs instead of Georgia.

With just 4 conferences the issue would have been Baylor or Cincinnati?

(01-04-2022 06:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 06:26 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 06:17 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:38 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That's life. And the tie breaks are agreed upon by all in advance and exist because squeezing in an extra week for play in games isn't an available option in football. We are making a simple matter needlessly difficult, and fans hate tedium, and they hate do overs and at large positions create do overs. I wouldn't be at all surprised if karma bit Alabama in the butt this year and they wind up tasting the do over frustration that LSU tasted some years back.

I think a big thing of it though is TV wants the best teams period. I mean this year with Alabama, Michigan, Utah, and Pittsburgh is prime example of what TV does not want with champions only.

I don't think we're ever seeing 4 champions only.

Being a conference champion helps TV and media build broader interest in the playoffs. All 8 CFP have had at least 3 conference champions in the final selections. Many years the CFP has all 4 participants being champions only...most recently in 2019 with LSU, Ohio State, Clemson and Oklahoma.

It's a lot easier for TV to attract casual fans with diversity in the playoffs. Casual fans don't obsess about the "eye test". They trust that conference champions = merit. They'll more easily be able to root for or against their regional school.

It's the SEC (and possibly B1G) that didn't want the 4 champions-only restriction. ESPN needs diversity and brands, they could sell the playoffs under different formats.

I don't think for a second ESPN would rather have this year Baylor in the playoffs instead of Georgia.

With just 4 conferences the issue would have been Baylor or Cincinnati?

I don't think they want either of them over Georgia. ESPN doesn't just want champions. They want the best teams. And they're willing to overpay to guarantee that.

(01-04-2022 11:56 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  I don't think he's scared of an expanded playoff but I do think he has a point. Most of the semi-finals have been blowouts and adding more teams isn't going to magically make that stop. The expansion though is primarily financially motivated, but also it would give more teams exposure which in a way benefits their recruiting which does harm some of the big boys like Alabama and Ohio State (but not really that much I guess)

That's why we need the expanded playoff to give the big bowls relevance again.

4/6 of the NY6 bowls are now semi-finals each season. Rose + Sugar could be permanent fixtures with the Cotton/Orange & Fiesta/Peach bowl rotating each season as a pair.

OR you expand to 16 teams and use 4 of the bowls as QF spots and 2 as SF with the championship game at whatever venue.

The problem is the weeks in between not playing a game from the conference championship game to the playoffs. There would be no blowouts. Saban is wrong. He is afraid that Alabama and the SEC would be eliminated from the playoffs before the championship game. People are getting tired of seeing the SEC always getting handed the easy silver spoon to the title, especially Alabama. Alabama and the SEC is killing the college football period.

(01-04-2022 06:56 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 11:56 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  I don't think he's scared of an expanded playoff but I do think he has a point. Most of the semi-finals have been blowouts and adding more teams isn't going to magically make that stop. The expansion though is primarily financially motivated, but also it would give more teams exposure which in a way benefits their recruiting which does harm some of the big boys like Alabama and Ohio State (but not really that much I guess)

That's why we need the expanded playoff to give the big bowls relevance again.

4/6 of the NY6 bowls are now semi-finals each season. Rose + Sugar could be permanent fixtures with the Cotton/Orange & Fiesta/Peach bowl rotating each season as a pair.

OR you expand to 16 teams and use 4 of the bowls as QF spots and 2 as SF with the championship game at whatever venue.

The problem is the weeks in between not playing a game from the conference championship game to the playoffs. There would be no blowouts. Saban is wrong. He is afraid that Alabama and the SEC would be eliminated from the playoffs before the championship game. People are getting tired of seeing the SEC always getting handed the easy silver spoon to the title, especially Alabama. Alabama and the SEC is killing the college football period.

the problem is you aren't going to change that because of final exams. There has to be a break there.

(01-04-2022 06:58 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 06:56 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 11:56 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  I don't think he's scared of an expanded playoff but I do think he has a point. Most of the semi-finals have been blowouts and adding more teams isn't going to magically make that stop. The expansion though is primarily financially motivated, but also it would give more teams exposure which in a way benefits their recruiting which does harm some of the big boys like Alabama and Ohio State (but not really that much I guess)

That's why we need the expanded playoff to give the big bowls relevance again.

4/6 of the NY6 bowls are now semi-finals each season. Rose + Sugar could be permanent fixtures with the Cotton/Orange & Fiesta/Peach bowl rotating each season as a pair.

OR you expand to 16 teams and use 4 of the bowls as QF spots and 2 as SF with the championship game at whatever venue.

The problem is the weeks in between not playing a game from the conference championship game to the playoffs. There would be no blowouts. Saban is wrong. He is afraid that Alabama and the SEC would be eliminated from the playoffs before the championship game. People are getting tired of seeing the SEC always getting handed the easy silver spoon to the title, especially Alabama. Alabama and the SEC is killing the college football period.

the problem is you aren't going to change that because of final exams. There has to be a break there.

What is a final exam?

We are doing away with the student fictions aren't we? Football and basketball players are media advertisements and marketing agents for Universities first and foremost. Exams are optional, as are degrees.

(01-04-2022 06:17 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:38 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Bullet, it ain't basketball! Win your conference and you are the best representative for it. Everything else is mental constipation.

Basketball needs the number of schools to keep it interesting and they can play 4 games in a week if they must. Football's interest builds with exclusion. E.G. The Super Bowl draws more than the playoffs which draw more than the regular season. Playing 4 conferences down to 4 finalists concentrates interest. Do-overs and non-champs only cheapens all of it.

The point is that the champ is sometimes decided by tie-breaks. And sometimes the 2nd and 3rd best team are in the same conference or even the same division. And its not basketball. A team could have one loss on the road in OT. They aren't conference champs, but its not like they got a rematch at home as they might in basketball.

That's life. And the tie breaks are agreed upon by all in advance and exist because squeezing in an extra week for play in games isn't an available option in football. We are making a simple matter needlessly difficult, and fans hate tedium, and they hate do overs and at large positions create do overs. I wouldn't be at all surprised if karma bit Alabama in the butt this year and they wind up tasting the do over frustration that LSU tasted some years back.

I think a big thing of it though is TV wants the best teams period. I mean this year with Alabama, Michigan, Utah, and Pittsburgh is prime example of what TV does not want with champions only.

I don't think we're ever seeing 4 champions only.

Being a conference champion helps TV and media build broader interest in the playoffs. All 8 CFP have had at least 3 conference champions in the final selections. Many years the CFP has all 4 participants being champions only...most recently in 2019 with LSU, Ohio State, Clemson and Oklahoma.

It's a lot easier for TV to attract casual fans with diversity in the playoffs. Casual fans don't obsess about the "eye test". They trust that conference champions = merit. They'll more easily be able to root for or against their regional school.

It's the SEC (and possibly B1G) that didn't want the 4 champions-only restriction. ESPN needs diversity and brands, they could sell the playoffs under different formats.

I'm not so sure about the bolded. E.g., Georgia, who wasn't a conference champ, was an 8-point favorite over Michigan, the B1G champ. IMO that means a lot of people thought Georgia was better, more 'merit', then Michigan, despite the conference champ labels.

(01-04-2022 06:56 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 11:56 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  I don't think he's scared of an expanded playoff but I do think he has a point. Most of the semi-finals have been blowouts and adding more teams isn't going to magically make that stop. The expansion though is primarily financially motivated, but also it would give more teams exposure which in a way benefits their recruiting which does harm some of the big boys like Alabama and Ohio State (but not really that much I guess)

That's why we need the expanded playoff to give the big bowls relevance again.

4/6 of the NY6 bowls are now semi-finals each season. Rose + Sugar could be permanent fixtures with the Cotton/Orange & Fiesta/Peach bowl rotating each season as a pair.

OR you expand to 16 teams and use 4 of the bowls as QF spots and 2 as SF with the championship game at whatever venue.

The problem is the weeks in between not playing a game from the conference championship game to the playoffs. There would be no blowouts. Saban is wrong. He is afraid that Alabama and the SEC would be eliminated from the playoffs before the championship game. People are getting tired of seeing the SEC always getting handed the easy silver spoon to the title, especially Alabama. Alabama and the SEC is killing the college football period.

(01-04-2022 05:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  If we want a playoff just like the NFL, then let's also do what the NFL does in structuring its league and its schedule. Let's also, while we're at it, find a legal mechanism for more equally distributing talent among the teams, and for reducing the number of teams so we have an NFL-size league. I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing a single 32 team league that shares media revenue equally.

Until we're ready to do that, guaranteeing 130 vastly unequal teams with vastly different schedules a "path" to a championship is just plain stupid. Let's face it. College football as it is now structured simply doesn't lend itself to the traditional playoff structure that makes sense in other sports and other leagues.

Like FCS, Division II, Division III, NAIA and every other NCAA sport?

Its not that hard. You don't need to do 24-32 like some of those other divisions, but its really not that hard.

FBS football isn't "every other NCAA sport," primarily because of, but not limited to, the money involved, and who gets how much.

And (because of that), it really IS that hard. If it were easy, everyone in decision-making positions would be able to agree on a viable format.

(01-04-2022 06:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 06:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 06:26 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 06:17 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:38 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think a big thing of it though is TV wants the best teams period. I mean this year with Alabama, Michigan, Utah, and Pittsburgh is prime example of what TV does not want with champions only.

I don't think we're ever seeing 4 champions only.

Being a conference champion helps TV and media build broader interest in the playoffs. All 8 CFP have had at least 3 conference champions in the final selections. Many years the CFP has all 4 participants being champions only...most recently in 2019 with LSU, Ohio State, Clemson and Oklahoma.

It's a lot easier for TV to attract casual fans with diversity in the playoffs. Casual fans don't obsess about the "eye test". They trust that conference champions = merit. They'll more easily be able to root for or against their regional school.

It's the SEC (and possibly B1G) that didn't want the 4 champions-only restriction. ESPN needs diversity and brands, they could sell the playoffs under different formats.

I don't think for a second ESPN would rather have this year Baylor in the playoffs instead of Georgia.

With just 4 conferences the issue would have been Baylor or Cincinnati?

I don't think they want either of them over Georgia. ESPN doesn't just want champions. They want the best teams. And they're willing to overpay to guarantee that.

ESPN wants the most popular teams, not necessarily the best.

(01-04-2022 07:22 PM)NJMark Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 05:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  If we want a playoff just like the NFL, then let's also do what the NFL does in structuring its league and its schedule. Let's also, while we're at it, find a legal mechanism for more equally distributing talent among the teams, and for reducing the number of teams so we have an NFL-size league. I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing a single 32 team league that shares media revenue equally.

Until we're ready to do that, guaranteeing 130 vastly unequal teams with vastly different schedules a "path" to a championship is just plain stupid. Let's face it. College football as it is now structured simply doesn't lend itself to the traditional playoff structure that makes sense in other sports and other leagues.

Like FCS, Division II, Division III, NAIA and every other NCAA sport?

Its not that hard. You don't need to do 24-32 like some of those other divisions, but its really not that hard.

FBS football isn't "every other NCAA sport," primarily because of, but not limited to, the money involved, and who gets how much.

And (because of that), it really IS that hard. If it were easy, everyone in decision-making positions would be able to agree on a viable format.

Its hard to get by the greed of the bowls and some other people. But its not hard to come up with something reasonable people can agree on.

(01-04-2022 06:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 06:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 06:26 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 06:17 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:38 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think a big thing of it though is TV wants the best teams period. I mean this year with Alabama, Michigan, Utah, and Pittsburgh is prime example of what TV does not want with champions only.

I don't think we're ever seeing 4 champions only.

Being a conference champion helps TV and media build broader interest in the playoffs. All 8 CFP have had at least 3 conference champions in the final selections. Many years the CFP has all 4 participants being champions only...most recently in 2019 with LSU, Ohio State, Clemson and Oklahoma.

It's a lot easier for TV to attract casual fans with diversity in the playoffs. Casual fans don't obsess about the "eye test". They trust that conference champions = merit. They'll more easily be able to root for or against their regional school.

It's the SEC (and possibly B1G) that didn't want the 4 champions-only restriction. ESPN needs diversity and brands, they could sell the playoffs under different formats.

I don't think for a second ESPN would rather have this year Baylor in the playoffs instead of Georgia.

With just 4 conferences the issue would have been Baylor or Cincinnati?

I don't think they want either of them over Georgia. ESPN doesn't just want champions. They want the best teams. And they're willing to overpay to guarantee that.

ESPN’s interest in schools like Georgia is partly driven by its brand value. Georgia captures viewership even when it’s arguably not the best team.

(01-04-2022 05:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  If we want a playoff just like the NFL, then let's also do what the NFL does in structuring its league and its schedule. Let's also, while we're at it, find a legal mechanism for more equally distributing talent among the teams, and for reducing the number of teams so we have an NFL-size league. I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing a single 32 team league that shares media revenue equally.

Until we're ready to do that, guaranteeing 130 vastly unequal teams with vastly different schedules a "path" to a championship is just plain stupid. Let's face it. College football as it is now structured simply doesn't lend itself to the traditional playoff structure that makes sense in other sports and other leagues.

Like FCS, Division II, Division III, NAIA and every other NCAA sport?

You mean all those tournaments almost nobody cares about watching? FBS isn't the only NCAA division that's bloated. Copying an unsuccessful product doesn't seem like a good idea to me. There's a reason why one third of the current FBS consists of schools that wanted to get away from a division that had an inclusive playoff. Most of them left the FCS before there was an FBS tournament. They left for a longer regular season and a chance to play in a meaningless bowl game for the fun of it. Now that there's big CFP money on the table, they want some of it for themselves. I don't blame them for wanting that, but that doesn't mean they deserve it or are entitled to it.

At least with the NCAAT, we only have to wait through two weekdays of mostly unwatchable games until the Round of 32 teams gets underway on the weekend. With a comparable tournament in football, we'd have to wait two weeks before there would be games that really matter. And those two weeks won't add all that much money to the revenue pool because their ratings will be dismal compared with the games involving the teams that so many here say they are tired of watching. They may be tired of watching, but they still do or ESPN wouldn't pay so much to broadcast them.

(01-04-2022 07:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 06:17 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:38 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-04-2022 03:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  The point is that the champ is sometimes decided by tie-breaks. And sometimes the 2nd and 3rd best team are in the same conference or even the same division. And its not basketball. A team could have one loss on the road in OT. They aren't conference champs, but its not like they got a rematch at home as they might in basketball.

That's life. And the tie breaks are agreed upon by all in advance and exist because squeezing in an extra week for play in games isn't an available option in football. We are making a simple matter needlessly difficult, and fans hate tedium, and they hate do overs and at large positions create do overs. I wouldn't be at all surprised if karma bit Alabama in the butt this year and they wind up tasting the do over frustration that LSU tasted some years back.

I think a big thing of it though is TV wants the best teams period. I mean this year with Alabama, Michigan, Utah, and Pittsburgh is prime example of what TV does not want with champions only.

I don't think we're ever seeing 4 champions only.

Being a conference champion helps TV and media build broader interest in the playoffs. All 8 CFP have had at least 3 conference champions in the final selections. Many years the CFP has all 4 participants being champions only...most recently in 2019 with LSU, Ohio State, Clemson and Oklahoma.

It's a lot easier for TV to attract casual fans with diversity in the playoffs. Casual fans don't obsess about the "eye test". They trust that conference champions = merit. They'll more easily be able to root for or against their regional school.

It's the SEC (and possibly B1G) that didn't want the 4 champions-only restriction. ESPN needs diversity and brands, they could sell the playoffs under different formats.

I'm not so sure about the bolded. E.g., Georgia, who wasn't a conference champ, was an 8-point favorite over Michigan, the B1G champ. IMO that means a lot of people thought Georgia was better, more 'merit', then Michigan, despite the conference champ labels.

By that rationale, Georgia is also a three point favorite over SEC champion Alabama. Georgia has more ‘merit’ with bettors, but casual fans likely only see #1 in front of Alabama on TV (versus #3 Georgia).

The championship game results are hyped more by ESPN. Alabama, Georgia and Michigan are all fairly comparable brands. I’d wager that ESPN ratings would be better if the finals would have been Alabama vs Michigan.